Observational studyPloS one2022
A cross-sectional analysis of podiatrist-initiated review processes after issuing prescribed foot orthoses.
Observational study in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFoot orthoses are widely used in clinical practice to treat foot, lower limb and back pathology. As published information guiding the clinical use of foot orthoses is scarce, the aim of this study is to profile the review processes used by practicing podiatrists after issuing an orthotic device.
methodsA cross-sectional observational study design formed the basis for a self-administered online questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed through podiatry networks based in Australia.
resultsTwo-hundred and thirty-eight practicing podiatrists participated in this study. Ninety-seven percent of respondents indicated that they would recommend a review appointment after the initial fitting of an orthotic device. Forty percent (n = 84) of respondents scheduled the first review appointment four weeks after the initial fitting, while 33% (n = 69) preferred a two-week review period. A second review consultation was standard practice for 32% (n = 68) or respondents, and were typically scheduled either two (23%, n = 12) or four (38%, n = 20) weeks after the initial review consultation. Annual review of orthotic devices was recommended by 64% (n = 123) of participants in the study, while 19% (n = 37) would suggest that yearly reviews were scheduled only if required.
conclusionsVariation was identified in the orthotic review processes used by practicing podiatrists, although most respondents recommend a routine short-term review appointment for foot orthoses. It is not clear why practitioners adopt such varied approaches. In the absence of any clear evidence on this topic, it may be that the differing approaches to patient review reflect different philosophical perspectives regarding patient management.
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.