Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32375847›Full record

Trial reportJournal of foot and ankle research2020

Effects of metatarsal domes on plantar pressures in older people with a history of forefoot pain.

Karl B Landorf, Claire A Ackland, Daniel R Bonanno, Hylton B Menz, Saeed Forghany

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Karl B LandorfDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3086, Australia. k.landorf@latrobe.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3882-5206
Claire A AcklandDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Daniel R BonannoDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Hylton B MenzLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Saeed ForghanyMusculoskeletal Research Center, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
La Trobe University · AUIsfahan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundForefoot pads such as metatarsal domes are commonly used in clinical practice for the treatment of pressure-related forefoot pain, however evidence for their effects is inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the effects on plantar pressures of metatarsal domes in different positions relative to the metatarsal heads.

methodsParticipants in this study included 36 community-dwelling adults aged 65 or older with a history of forefoot pain. Standardised footwear was used and plantar pressures were measured using the pedar®-X in-shoe plantar pressure measurement system. Peak pressure, maximum force and contact area were analysed using an anatomically-based masking protocol that included three forefoot mask sub-areas (proximal to, beneath, and distal to the metatarsal heads). Data were collected for two different types of prefabricated metatarsal domes of different densities (Emsold metatarsal dome and Langer PPT metatarsal pad) in three different positions relative to the metatarsal heads. Seven conditions were tested in this study: (i) control (no pad) condition, (ii) Emsold metatarsal dome positioned 5 mm proximal to the metatarsal heads, (iii) Emsold metatarsal dome positioned in-line with the metatarsal heads, (iv), Emsold metatarsal dome positioned 5 mm distal to the metatarsal heads, (v) Langer PPT metatarsal pad positioned 5 mm proximal to the metatarsal heads, (vi) Langer PPT metatarsal pad positioned in-line with the metatarsal heads, and (vii) Langer PPT metatarsal pad positioned 5 mm distal to the metatarsal heads.

resultsWhen analysed with the mask that was distal to the metatarsal heads, where the plantar pressure readings were at their highest, all metatarsal dome conditions led to significant reductions in plantar pressure at the forefoot compared to the control (no pad) condition (F

conclusionsMetatarsal domes reduce plantar pressure in the forefoot in older people with a history of forefoot pain. All metatarsal dome conditions significantly reduced peak pressure in the forefoot, however metatarsal domes that were positioned 5 mm proximal to the metatarsal heads provided the best balance of reducing plantar pressure distal to the metatarsal heads, where the pressure is at its greatest, but not adversely increasing plantar pressure proximally, where the bulk of the pad is positioned. In this proximal position, the Emsold metatarsal dome was more effective than the Langer PPT metatarsal pad and we cautiously recommend this forefoot pad for alleviating forefoot pressure in older people with forefoot pain.

Indexed as

Foot OrthosesAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFoot DiseasesForefoot, HumanHumansIndependent LivingMaleMetatarsal BonesMusculoskeletal PainPlantar PlatePressureTreatment OutcomeWeight-BearingAgedBiomechanicsForefoot, humanKineticsOrthosesOrthotic devicesPainPlantar pressure

Identifiers

PMID32375847
PMCPMC7201604
OpenAlexW3022418726

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.