ArticleJournal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO2024
From Design to Clinical Translation: Unraveling Orthotist Perspectives on 3D Printed Accommodative Insoles.
Article in Journal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO, 2024. 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.
- Quantifying differences in high-pressure region mapping between dynamic in-shoe and barefoot plantar pressure in diabetic subjects.Journal of biomechanics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Custom accommodative insoles have become the gold standard for managing plantar pressures and reducing ulceration risk in persons with diabetes. With advances in 3D printing technologies, methods of fabricating 3D printed accommodative insoles have emerged. Clinician feedback is imperative to developing a 3D printed accommodative insole that meets clinical needs and is more effective than the current standard of care. Objective: To inform the development of 3D printed accommodative insoles by gaining clinician perspective on insole requirements and application of the digital workflow for seamless translation into the clinical setting. Study Design: Qualitative study. Methods: Four focus groups with a total of 16 Orthotists were held, prompting discussions on the current standard of care accommodative insole and other 3D printed insoles we have developed. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and main themes were derived from transcriptions. Results: Review and analysis of the transcripts resulted in four main themes: 1) Reimbursement, 2) Durability, 3) Effectiveness, and 4) Workflow application in clinic. Conclusions: The responses showed areas to focus improvements on the 3D printed insole design and ways to ease the transition into a clinical setting. Clinician support is crucial in the adoption of a new device to clinical practice. Their feedback is essential to ensuring the item meets the clinical needs and the workflow is not disruptive to the clinical setting. Clinical relevance: Understanding clinician perspective on current SoC disadvantages and shortcomings, areas for improvement in the 3D printed insole fabrication, and what is feasible in clinic appointments will help inform insole design and aid in translating new 3D-printing technology to clinical care for improved patient outcomes.
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.