SynthesisPloS one2022
What is the evidence for efficacy, effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for plantar fasciopathy? A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and tolerability of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in patients with plantar fasciopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of platelet-rich plasma versus steroid injection in plantar fasciitis: a randomized clinical trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo systematically review randomised control trials (RCT's) assessing the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions in adults with plantar fasciopathy (PF). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registries and references lists. RCT's comparing surgical interventions with non-surgical or surgical comparisons in adults with PF were included. Primary outcomes were changes in first step pain severity/intensity, and incidence/nature of adverse events. Secondary outcomes included foot and ankle related disability/function, health related quality of life, cost effectiveness, changes in other reported measures of pain and medication use. Data were extracted at short-term (≤3 months post-intervention), medium-term (>3months-≤6 months post-intervention) or long-term (>6 months-≤2 years post-treatment). Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
resultsFrom 3620 screened records, we included 8 studies comprising 345 patients. Substantial variation across trials precluded meta-analysis, hence a narrative synthesis was conducted. We judged all studies to have high risk of bias. For all outcome comparisons our GRADE judgement for the certainty of the evidence was very low. Three studies compared one type of surgery with another largely showing little to no difference in outcomes for pain, function or quality of life. Five studies compared surgery with non-surgical interventions-three providing very low certainty evidence that surgery may improve pain and function at long-term follow-up compared to non-surgical comparisons, whereas two studies provided no long-term between-group differences. Reporting of adverse events were inadequate, inconsistent or absent across all studies.
conclusionThere is a paucity of high certainty evidence to support or refute the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions in the management of PF. We make recommendations for improving the evidence base in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.