Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Meta-analysis of foot orthoses studies

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Simon Spooner, Nov 3, 2007.

  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

    The results of the meta-analysis posted here:

    Got me thinking about the last one of these I read on foot orthoses:
    A critical review of the literature on foot orthoses
    Pratt J Am Podiatr Med Assoc.2000; 90: 339-341

    How do the scoring systems that were applied in the these two studies differ?

    Do any of the reviewed studies that appear in both papers get widely differing "ratings" by the authors when the different criteria are applied?

    If we took the more recent papers that were reviewed (post 2000) by Collins et al. and applied Pratt's criteria how would they score?

    P.S. What was the "modification" to the Pedro system, i.e. could you list the the 14 criteria applied by Collins et al. please?
  2. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    The two meta-analyses Simon refers to are:

    Collins N, Bisset L, McPoil T, Vicenzino B. Foot orthoses in lower limb overuse conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 2007 Mar;28(3):396-412
    DJ Pratt A critical review of the literature on foot orthoses
    J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2000 90: 339-341
    I do not have the conclusion/summary from Pratt handy, but what was it?
  3. Nor I. As I recall it was something along the lines of: they were all very poor to poor with the exception of the Kilmartin study.

    I still think that RCT's on custom foot orthoses are at best a test of the prescription/ manufacture protocol and not of the orthoses per se and the trouble with this kind of meta-analysis is that it uses RCT's as gold standards. :bash:
  4. Atlas

    Atlas Well-Known Member

    Systematic review (SR) of Rome K, Handoll H, and Ashford R, (2007) covered preventative intervention (mostly orthotics) and treatment (aircast braces) for lower-limb stress fractures.
  5. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Here it is:
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I guess that is a dilemma the researchers have to face...ie doing research that stacks up well on the scoring systems (eg Sackets; PEDro; etc) so its methodologically sound and then on the other hand satisfying the demands of clinicians which may lower the score in the quality ratings.

    Bottom line is that RCT's on foot orthoses generally rank poorly on the research quality scales (Pratt only found the Kilmartin et al study was ranked high enough to have some quality, yet the Collins et al analysis only gave it a 7/14 where as the more recent Landorf et al study got a 11/14).
  7. I would also imagine that RCT's on customized braces/orthoses made for any part of the body would also rank poorly on research quality scales. Could this simply be an inherent problem with any customized brace/orthosis in that they are, by their very nature, "customized" and, as a result, need expert adjustment to achieve their therapeutic potential?? In other words, RCTs of customized foot orthoses, if the researchers do not allow for adjustment of the foot orthoses after dispensing in their study, will never show the therapeutic potential that a talented foot orthosis clinician may achieve in a normal situation with a patient.


Share This Page