Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35653355›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Tibiofemoral contact force differences between flat flexible and stable supportive walking shoes in people with varus-malaligned medial knee osteoarthritis: A randomized cross-over study.

Scott Starkey, Rana Hinman, Kade Paterson, David Saxby, Gabrielle Knox, Michelle Hall

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

6 authors.

Scott StarkeyCentre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9988-4499
Rana HinmanCentre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kade PatersonCentre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David SaxbyGriffith Centre of Biomedical and Rehabilitation Engineering (GCORE), Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Gabrielle KnoxCentre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0581-4906
Michelle HallCentre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effect of stable supportive to flat flexible walking shoes on medial tibiofemoral contact force (MTCF) in people with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus malalignment.

designThis was a randomized cross-over study. Twenty-eight participants aged ≥50 years with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus malalignment were recruited from the community. Three-dimensional full-body motion, ground reaction forces and surface electromyograms from twelve lower-limb muscles were acquired during six speed-matched walking trials for flat flexible and stable supportive shoes, tested in random order. An electromyogram-informed neuromusculoskeletal model with subject-specific geometry estimated bodyweight (BW) normalized MTCF. Waveforms were analyzed using statistical parametric mapping with a repeated measures analysis of variance model. Peak MTCF, MTCF impulse and MTCF loading rates (discrete outcomes) were evaluated using a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance model.

resultsStatistical parametric mapping showed lower MTCF in stable supportive compared to flat flexible shoes during 5-18% of stance phase (p = 0.001). For the discrete outcomes, peak MTCF and MTCF impulse were not different between the shoe styles. However, mean differences [95%CI] in loading impulse (-0.02 BW·s [-0.02, 0.01], p<0.001), mean loading rate (-1.42 BW·s-1 [-2.39, -0.45], p = 0.01) and max loading rate (-3.26 BW·s-1 [-5.94, -0.59], p = 0.02) indicated lower measure of loading in stable supportive shoes compared to flexible shoes.

conclusionsStable supportive shoes reduced MTCF during loading stance and reduced loading impulse/rates compared to flat flexible shoes and therefore may be more suitable in people with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus malalignment.

trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (12619000622101).

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeShoesAustraliaBiomechanical PhenomenaCross-Over StudiesHumansWalking

Identifiers

PMID35653355
PMCPMC9162314

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.