Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36611153›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023

Foot orthoses for flexible flatfeet in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes.

Leonoor N T Oerlemans, Charles M M Peeters, Roelina Munnik-Hagewoud, Ingrid M Nijholt, Adhiambo Witlox, Cees C P M Verheyen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Leonoor N T OerlemansDepartment of Orthopaedics, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Charles M M PeetersDepartment of Orthopaedics, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Roelina Munnik-HagewoudDepartment of Orthopaedics, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Ingrid M NijholtDepartment of Innovation and Science, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Adhiambo WitloxDepartment of Orthopaedics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Cees C P M VerheyenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Isala Hospital, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. C.C.P.M.Verheyen@isala.nl.
Isala · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of orthoses for flexible flatfeet in terms of patient-reported outcomes in children and adults.

methodsEMBASE, Medline (OvidSP), Web-of-Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, i.e., Cochrane Central and Pubmed were searched to identify relevant studies since their inception up to February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and prospective studies in which patient reported outcomes at baseline and follow-up in an orthoses group were compared with a no orthoses or sham sole group. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). A meta-analysis was performed where there were multiple studies with the same outcome measures, which was the case for the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain in adults.

resultsIn total nine studies were included: four RCT in children (N = 353) and four RCT and one prospective study in adults (N = 268) were included. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies. A meta-analysis demonstrated that pain reduction between baseline and follow-up was significantly larger in the orthoses (N = 167) than in the control groups in adults (N = 157; - 4.76, 95% CI [- 9.46, - 0.06], p0.05).

conclusionDue to heterogeneity in study designs, we cannot conclude that foot orthoses are useful for flexible flatfoot in children and adults. However, based on the meta-analysis orthoses might be useful in decreasing pain in adults. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Indexed as

FlatfootFoot OrthosesAdultBiasChildHumansPainPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultsChildrenFoot orthosesMeta-analysisSymptomatic flexible flatfeetSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36611153
PMCPMC9825043
OpenAlexW4313656397

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.