Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39943509›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Does Scanner Choice Matter for the Design of Foot Orthosis?

Komal Chhikara, Sinduja Suresh, Scott Morrison, Dean Hartley, Kerrie Evans, Marie-Luise Wille, Müge Belek Fialho Teixeira, Bridget Hughes, Natalie Haskell, Amanda Beatson and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Is palpation essential in the digital era of orthotic designing?Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    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

12 authors.

Komal ChhikaraSchool of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Sinduja SureshSchool of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0462-7762
Scott MorrisoniOrthotics, Brisbane, QLD 4030, Australia.
Dean HartleyiOrthotics, Brisbane, QLD 4030, Australia.ORCID 0009-0008-2405-2127
Kerrie EvansHealthia Limited, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7592-7850
Marie-Luise WilleSchool of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4962-7587
Müge Belek Fialho TeixeiraSchool of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0593-9597
Bridget HughesSchool of Education, Faculty of Creative Industries, Education, and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Natalie HaskellSchool of Design, Faculty of Creative Industries, Education and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.
Amanda BeatsonQUT Business School, Centre for Decent Work and Industry (CDWI), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7741-2060
Marianella Chamorro-KocSchool of Design, Faculty of Creative Industries, Education and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7982-1626
Judith Paige LittleSchool of Mechanical, Medical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8377-5343

Funding

CRC-P Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources CRC-P11 - CRCPXI000116
6 · The paper itself

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

Equipment DesignFootFoot OrthosesImaging, Three-DimensionalAdultFemaleHumansMaleWeight-Bearingfootgeometryorthosesorthotic designscanningthree-dimensional

Identifiers

PMID39943509
PMCPMC11820986

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.