Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38427634›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Gait retraining targeting foot pronation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seyed Hamed Mousavi, Fateme Khorramroo, Amirali Jafarnezhadgero

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Reliability of the Dynamic Foot Index for Observational Assessment of Foot Motion During Gait.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comparative Study of Plantar Load and Foot Posture Characteristics in Male Elite Squash Players and Non-Athletes in Taiwan.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Seyed Hamed MousaviFaculty of Sport Sciences and Health, Department of Sport Injuries and Biomechanics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-2906-2101
Fateme KhorramrooFaculty of Sport Sciences and Health, Department of Sport Injuries and Biomechanics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-8018-7650
Amirali JafarnezhadgeroFaculty of Educational Science and Psychology, Department of Sport Managements and Biomechanics, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Foot pronation is a prevalent condition known to contribute to a range of lower extremity injuries. Numerous interventions have been employed to address this issue, many of which are expensive and necessitate specific facilities. Gait retraining has been suggested as a promising intervention for modifying foot pronation, offering the advantage of being accessible and independent of additional materials or specific time. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the effect of gait retraining on foot pronation. We searched four databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase from their inception through 20 June 2023. The Downs and Black appraisal scale was applied to assess quality of included studies. Two reviewers screened studies to identify studies reporting the effect of different methods of gait-retraining on foot pronation. Outcomes of interest were rearfoot eversion, foot pronation, and foot arch. Two authors separately extracted data from included studies. Data of interest were study design, intervention, variable, sample size and sex, tools, age, height, weight, body mass index, running experience, and weekly distance of running. Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with random effects model in RevMan version 5.4. Fifteen studies with a total of 295 participants were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that changing step width does not have a significant effect on peak rearfoot eversion. The results of the meta-analysis showed that changing step width does not have a significant effect on peak rearfoot eversion. Results of single studies indicated that reducing foot progression angle (MD 2.1, 95% CI 0.62, 3.58), lateralizing COP (MD -3.3, 95% CI -4.88, -1.72) can effectively reduce foot pronation. Overall, this study suggests that gait retraining may be a promising intervention for reducing foot pronation; Most of the included studies demonstrated significant improvements in foot pronation following gait retraining. Changing center of pressure, foot progression angle and forefoot strike training appeared to yield more favorable outcomes. However, further research is needed to fully understand its effectiveness and long-term benefits.

Indexed as

FootGaitBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansLower ExtremityPronation

Identifiers

PMID38427634
PMCPMC10906845

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.