Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32878869›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of sports medicine2021

Custom insoles versus sham and GP-led usual care in patients with plantar heel pain: results of the STAP-study - a randomised controlled trial.

Nadine Rasenberg, Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra, Lars Fuit, Michael Skovdal Rathleff, Amy Dieker, Peter van Veldhoven, Patrick J E Bindels, Marienke van Middelkoop

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Nadine RasenbergDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7190-1779
Sita M A Bierma-ZeinstraDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lars FuitPodiatrist practice: Podotherapie Fuit en van Houten, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
Michael Skovdal RathleffCenter for General Practice in Aalborg, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Amy DiekerDutch Association of Podiatrists, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
Peter van VeldhovenDepartment of Sports Medicine, Haaglanden Medical Centre, Leidschendam, The Netherlands.
Patrick J E BindelsDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marienke van MiddelkoopDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands m.vanmiddelkoop@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6926-0618
Erasmus MC · NLAalborg University · DKMedisch Centrum Haaglanden · NLNederlandse Vereniging van Podotherapeuten · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare custom-made insoles to sham insoles and general practice (GP)-led usual care in terms of pain at rest and during activity at 12 weeks follow-up in individuals with plantar heel pain.

methodsIn this randomised clinical trial 185 patients aged 18 to 65 years, with a clinical diagnosis of plantar heel pain for at least 2 weeks, but no longer than 2 years were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups: (1) GP-led treatment, plus an information booklet with exercises (usual care; n=46), (2) referral to a podiatrist for treatment with a custom-made insole plus an information booklet with exercises (custom-made insole; n=70) and (3) referral to a podiatrist and treatment with a sham insole plus an information booklet with exercises (sham insole; n=69). As well as the primary outcome of pain severity (11-point Numerical Rating Scale) we used the Foot Function Index (0 to 100) as a secondary outcome.

resultsOf 185 randomised participants, 176 completed the 12-week follow-up. There was no difference in pain or function between the insole and the sham groups at 12 weeks. Participants in the GP-led usual care group reported less pain during activity at 12 weeks, (mean difference (MD) 0.94, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.65), less first step pain (MD 1.48, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.31), better function (MD 7.37, 95% CI 1.27 to 13.46) and higher recovery rates (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96) compared with participants in the custom insole group.

conclusionsReferral to a podiatrist for a custom-made insole does not lead to a better outcome compared to sham insoles or compared to GP-led usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5346.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyFoot OrthosesAdultCombined Modality TherapyFasciitis, PlantarFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain Measurementfootgeneral practiceinterventionpodiatry

Identifiers

PMID32878869
PMCPMC7907578
OpenAlexW3082558415

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.