ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis?
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Is palpation essential in the digital era of orthotic designing?Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A variety of 3D volumetric scanners and smart-device applications are currently being used in podiatry for recording virtual foot data. The accuracy and reliability of these devices vary, resulting in a large variation in the quality of foot scans used for orthotic design. While it is widely believed that a higher quality scanner yields a better scan and thus is expected to produce a more accurate orthotic design, the direct impact of scanning quality on orthotic design has not yet been tested. Therefore, in this study, three commonly used industrial 3D scanners with varying output qualities were used to obtain foot scans of three participants in two weight-bearing conditions. A total of 54 foot scans were obtained, out of which 18 were used to design orthotic insoles using commercial software (FitFoot360). We found variation in the quality of foot scans produced by the different scanners (61.75 ± 2.23% similarity of the foot scans showing a deviation of less than ±1 mm). However, there were no significant differences in the designed foot orthoses within the same weight-bearing condition (83.59 ± 1.97% similarity of the orthotic designs showing a deviation of less than ±1 mm). The medial arch height and heel width differed significantly only when the weight-bearing condition was changed. The findings from this study suggest that the industrial design and production of an orthotic insole using current methods does not depend on the scanning quality of the scanner used but is dependent on the extent of weight bearing.
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.