Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31338205›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019

The efficacy of foot orthoses in individuals with patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a randomised feasibility trial.

Jade M Tan, Hylton B Menz, Kay M Crossley, Shannon E Munteanu, Harvi F Hart, Kane J Middleton, Anne J Smith, Natalie J Collins

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jade M Tan1Discipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086 Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3677-7666
Hylton B Menz1Discipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086 Australia.
Kay M Crossley2La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086 Australia.
Shannon E Munteanu1Discipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086 Australia.
Harvi F Hart2La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086 Australia.
Kane J Middleton2La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086 Australia.
Anne J Smith5School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, 6102 Australia.
Natalie J Collins2La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 3086 Australia.
La Trobe University · AUCurtin University · AUThe University of Queensland · AUWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoot orthoses have the potential to be an efficacious treatment for patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) but have not been evaluated in clinical trials in this population. This study aimed to determine the: (i) feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating the efficacy of foot orthoses in individuals with PFOA; and (ii) effects of foot orthoses versus flat shoe inserts on pain, function, and knee-related quality of life (QOL).

methodsThis 6-week, single-blinded pilot RCT randomly allocated participants with PFOA to receive foot orthoses or flat inserts. The primary outcome of feasibility was determined via the following parameters: one participant recruited per week, 20% (35 h/week) adherence to the intervention, 50% log book completion rate, and < 20% drop-out, with results reported using descriptive statistics. Secondary outcomes included average and maximum pain severity (100 mm visual analogue scale), Anterior Knee Pain Scale, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, analysed using analysis of covariance.

resultsTwenty-six participants (16 women; mean (SD) age of 60 (8) years) with PFOA were recruited. All feasibility parameters were exceeded, with three participants recruited per week, > 20% (37.2 [9.8] hours/week) adherence to the intervention, 69.2% (18/26) log-book completion, and 3.8% (1/26) drop-outs. The most common adverse events were arch irritation and shoe fit issues, which were more common in the foot orthoses group (67.9%

conclusionThis study supports the feasibility of a full-scale RCT to determine the efficacy of foot orthoses

trial registrationThe trial protocol was retrospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR number: 12616001287426).

Indexed as

Foot orthosesOsteoarthritisPatellofemoral

Identifiers

PMID31338205
PMCPMC6625074
OpenAlexW2958116862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.