SynthesisScientific reports2026
Effects of conservative interventions on plantar pressure in individuals with flat foot: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Differences in Plantar Pressure Distribution Between Adults with Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Flexible Flatfeet During Walking and Heel-Strike Running.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pes planus involves the collapse of the medial longitudinal arch, altering gait and plantar pressure and leading to pain and injury. This review aimed to evaluate the effects of conservative interventions on plantar pressure in flatfoot patients. Four databases were searched from inception to 20 February 2025. Two reviewers screened studies using predefined criteria and the Downs and Black scale. Eligible designs included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies. Mean differences with 95% CIs were synthesized using a random-effects model, and evidence strength was graded using modified van Tulder criteria. Twenty-eight studies (5–80 participants; total n = 815) involving young to middle-aged adults with flexible flatfoot were included, and most showed moderate methodological quality. Exercise significantly reduced medial-heel pressure (MD − 12.61; 95% CI − 21.23 to − 3.98; strong evidence; 2 RCTs) but showed no significant change in midfoot pressure (MD 0.62; 95% CI − 4.41 to 5.65; 2 RCTs). Taping reduced medial-forefoot peak pressure (MD − 3.40; 95% CI − 5.78 to − 1.03; strong evidence; 5 studies) and did not change lateral-heel pressure (MD -1.26 ; 95% CI -5.11 to 2.58; strong evidence; 5 studies). Taping increased second-toe pressure by 28.2% (MD 3.69; 95% CI 1.64 to 5.75; 2 studies) and third-to-fifth-toe pressure by 34.7% (MD 3.21; 95% CI 1.85 to 4.56; 2 studies), while reducing middle forefoot by 18.2% (MD − 6.33; 95% CI − 8.95 to − 3.71; moderate evidence; 2 studies) and lateral forefoot by 12.4% (MD − 1.24; 95% CI − 2.14 to − 0.34; moderate evidence; 3 studies). Insoles increased medial-midfoot pressure by 61% (MD 29.15; 95% CI 17.23 to 41.06; 2 studies) but did not significantly change first-metatarsal (MD 8.79; 95% CI − 11.75 to 29.33; 2 studies) and lateral-midfoot pressures (MD 5.93; 95% CI − 26.31 to 38.16; 2 studies). Overall, conservative interventions may modify plantar-pressure distribution and provide short-term relief (primarily from acute/single-session taping and insole studies, with exercise effects observed over periods up to 8 weeks), but long-term efficacy remains unclear.Protocol registration: CRD42024621107.
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.