Background
Methods
Search strategy
Eligibility criteria
Risk of bias assessment
Data management
Study | Level of evidence | Study design |
N
| Cohort | Mean age (SD) | Pes planus measure | Domain of outcome measures | FOs brand or type | FOs shell material | FOs posting | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RF | FF | ||||||||||
Rome and Brown [48] | II | RCT | 50 (25/25) | Excessive pronators | 23.8 (2.2) | FPI-8 | Physical function | Talar made © | EVA | 5° | 0° |
Esterman and Pilotto [34] | II | RCT | 47 (25/22) | Air force recruits | 21.6 (3.9) | AI | Pain | AOL® | Plastic | 4° | 4° |
Otman et al. [50] | III-2 | CCT | 20 (20/20) | Female adults | 25.8 (1.3) | Radiographs | Physical function | Arch supports | Polypropylene | 0° | 0° |
Zifchock and Davis [41] | IV | RM | 19 | Low arched recreation runners | 23.6 (6.4) | AHI | Rearfoot kinematics | A. Modified Root device | Graphite | 0 – 7° | 0° |
B. KLM® | Graphite | NR | NR | ||||||||
Mündermann et al. [47] | IV | RM | 21 | Recreational runners | 25.4 (5.6) | RE | Rearfoot kinematics and kinetics | A. Modified Root device | Polypropylene | 6 mm | 6 mm |
B. Modified Root device | Polypropylene | 0° | 0° | ||||||||
C. Pre-made Insert | EVA | 6 mm | 6 mm | ||||||||
Cobb et al. [52] | IV | RM | 16 | Low mobile arch adults | 25.4 (6.5) | AHI | Rearfoot kinematics | A. MASS Device | Polyethylene composite | 0° | 0° |
B. Modified Root device | Leather and composite material | NR | NR | ||||||||
Murley et al. [40] | IV | RM | 30 | Adults | 21.8 (4.3) | AI & NH | Physical function | A. Inverted (Blake) device | Polypropylene | 20 ° | 0° |
B. Formthotic ® | Duel density polyethylene foam | 6 mm | 0° | ||||||||
Redmond et al. [44] | IV | RM | 22 | Excessive pronators | 24 | RE | Kinetics | A. Modified Root device | Polypropylene | 6° | 0° |
B. Pre-made Insert | Thin card with EVA posts | 6° | 0° | ||||||||
Zammit and Payne [42] | IV | RM | 22 | Excessive RF pronators (clinical practice) | 44.3 (16.7) | FPI-8 | Pain and physical function | Independently prescribed | Variable | IP | IP |
Murley and Bird [40] | IV | RM | 17 | Adults | 23.0 (5.0) | FPI-6 | Physical function | A. Inverted (Blake) device | NR | 30 ° | 0° |
B. Inverted (Blake) device | NR | 15° | 0° | ||||||||
C. Inverted (Blake) device | NR | 0° | 0° | ||||||||
Hurd et al. [51] | IV | RM | 15 | Recreational runners | 34.0 (10.0) | FF to RF | Rearfoot kinematics and kinetics | A. Flat foot Insert © | Polyurethane with a poron layer | 0° | 4° |
B. SofSole® | Graphite Polyurethane | 0° | 0° | ||||||||
Johanson et al. [49] | IV | RM | 22 | Physical therapy attendees (clinical practice) | 30.5 (8.0) | FF to RF | Rearfoot kinematics | A. Orthofeet Biothotics© | Water injected polyurethane shells with EVA posting | 80% of FF post | Up to 7 mm |
B. Orthofeet Biothotics© | As above | 80% of FF post | 0° | ||||||||
C. Orthofeet Biothotics© | As above | 0° | Up to 7 mm | ||||||||
D. Orthofeet Biothotics© | As above | 0° | 0° | ||||||||
Chen et al. [39] | IV | RM | 11 | Adults | 45.9 (15.7) | AI | Kinetics and physical function | NR | Vinyl-acetate & 12% far-infrared nanopowders | NR | NR |
Statistical methods
Results
Study selection and design
Risk of bias assessment
Participants
Types of foot orthoses
Outcome measures
Study | Activity | Outcome | No FO (mean ± SD) | Device | FO (mean ± SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Esterman and Pilotto [34] | 10 week basic air force training recorded at baseline and 8 weeks | VAS 0 – 10, pain previous 24 hours following 8 weeks of FO use | 1.14 (2.4) | NA | 0.68 (1.5) |
Zammit and Payne [42] | FHSQ reported at baseline and 4 weeks | Increase in FHSQ pain subscale following 4 weeks of FO use (reduction in pain) | 49.84 (24.8) | NA |
70.86 (19.5)
|
Study | Activity | Outcome | No FO (mean ± SD) | Device | FO (mean ± SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zifchock and Davis [41] | Over-ground walking (2.0 m/s) in low arch cohort | Peak RF eversion (°) | 4.31 (2.5) | A | 5.45 (5.1) |
B | 4.38 (2.2) | ||||
RF eversion excursion (°) | 10.60 (2.8) | A | 9.47 (1.9) | ||
B | 9.68 (1.8) | ||||
Peak RF eversion velocity (°/s) | 155.65 (46.9) | A | 141.50 (47.2) | ||
B | 144.78 (46.5) | ||||
Mündermann et al. [47] | Over-ground running (4.0 ± 0.2 m/s) in recreational runners with everted rearfoot. | Peak foot eversion (°) * | 16.00 (2.3) | A | 16.90 (3.6) |
B | 16.60 (2.5) | ||||
C |
13.70 (2.7)
| ||||
Peak foot eversion velocity (°/s) * | 464.70 (155.2) | A | 484.40 (141.1) | ||
B | 476.80 (145.0) | ||||
C | 392.90 (135.0) | ||||
Cobb et al. [52] | Over-ground walking (1.3 to 1.4 m/s) in low arch cohort | RF eversion excursion (terminal stance (°) | 0.85 (0.8) | A | 0.28 (0.5) |
0.02 (0.4) | B | 0.18 (0.3) | |||
Hurd et al. [51] | Over-ground walking (1.2 m/s ± 5%) in forefoot varus cohort | RF eversion (initial contact) (°) | -1.60 (3.6) | A | -1.00 (3.1) |
B | -0.30 (4.0) | ||||
Peak RF eversion (loading) (°) | -3.40 (3.7) | A | -2.80 (5.6) | ||
B | -2.70 (5.3) | ||||
Over-ground running (1.7 m/s ± 5%) in forefoot varus cohort | RF eversion (initial contact) (°) * | -3.30 (4.0) | A | -2.50 (5.0) | |
B | -2.30 (4.5) | ||||
Peak RF eversion (loading) (°) * | -5.60 (3.5) | A | -5.30 (10.5) | ||
B | -5.60 (11.1) | ||||
Johanson et al. [49] | Treadmill walking (1.11 m/s) in forefoot varus cohort | Peak RF eversion (°) | 0.80 (3.0) | A |
-1.35 (2.8)
|
B | -0.88 (3.3) | ||||
C | -0.44 (3.3) | ||||
D | -0.36 (3.0) |
Study | Activity | Outcome | No FO (mean ± SD) | Device | FO (mean ± SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mündermann et al. [47] | Over-ground running (4.0 ± 0.2 m/s) | Vertical impact peak (N) | 1499.10 (255.6) | A | 1352.30 (233.6) |
B | 1400.40 (242.5) | ||||
C | 1519.40 (265.9) | ||||
Peak loading rate (N/s) | 52.50 (11.1) | A |
42.0 (10.9)
| ||
B |
44.8 (11.1)
| ||||
C | 53.5 (11.9) | ||||
Redmond et al. [44] | Over-ground walking (self-selected speed) | Peak force (heel) (N) | 544.50 (104.3) | A | 501.90 (97.3) |
B | 543.80 (100.6) | ||||
Peak force (midfoot) (N) | 195.30 (62.7) | A |
234.20 (58.8)
| ||
B | 156.20 (73.9) | ||||
Peak force (lateral FF) (N) | 426.90 (12.1) | A | 396.90 (110.3) | ||
B | 429.90 (122.0) | ||||
Peak force (medial FF) (N) | 188.50 (62.9) | A | 173.20 (65.4) | ||
B | 190.00 (72.2) | ||||
Peak force (hallux) (N) | 148.90 (63.1) | A | 161.40 (54.9) | ||
B | 159.90 (53.9) | ||||
Force-time integral (heel) (N/s) | 1436.20 (462.2) | A | 1285.00 (385.3) | ||
B | 1488.90 (441.1) | ||||
Force-time integral (midfoot) (N/s) | 527.70 (224.4) | A |
812.30 (267.0)
| ||
B | 454.40 (253.5) | ||||
Force-time integral (lateral FF) (N/s) | 1394.70 (575.1) | A |
1056.90 (436.3)
| ||
B | 1317.00 (520.5) | ||||
Force-time integral (medial FF) (N/s) | 468.50 (212.1) | A |
340.30 (175.9)
| ||
B | 423.50 (202.5) | ||||
Force-time integral (hallux) (N/s) | 294.90 (141.5) | A | 304.60 (155.7) | ||
B | 317.70 (145.3) | ||||
Mündermann et al. [47] | Over-ground running (4.0 ± 0.2 m/s) | Peak ankle inversion moment (Nm.kg-1) | 0.47 (0.1) | A | 0.40 (0.1) |
B | 0.43 (0.1) | ||||
C |
0.38 (0.1)
| ||||
Time of ankle inversion moment (% of gait cycle) | 41.00 (5.5) | A | 39.90 (6.5) | ||
B | 41.40 (6.7) | ||||
C | 40.20 (5.5) | ||||
Hurd et al. [51] | Over-ground walking (1.2 m/s ± 5%) | Peak RF moment (Nm.kg-1) | 0.78 (0.4) | A | 0.74 (0.5) |
B | 0.88 (0.3) | ||||
Mean RF moment (Nm.kg-1) | 0.04 (0.4) | A | -0.18 (0.5) | ||
B | 0.19 (0.5) | ||||
Over-ground running (1.7 m/s ± 5%) | Peak RF moment (Nm.kg-1) | 1.75 (0.7) | A |
1.23 (0.6)
| |
B | 1.76 (0.7) | ||||
Mean RF moment (Nm.kg-1) | 0.71 (1.0) | A | 0.09 (1.0) | ||
B | 0.92 (0.8) |
Study | Activity | Outcome | No FO (mean ± SD) | Device | FO (mean ± SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rome and Brown [48] | Quiet standing | Mean of the 300 balance points measured over 30 seconds (%) | 49.40*^ | NA | 46.10*^ |
Medial to lateral sway - rate of deviation from the mean balance over 30 seconds (%) | 1.90*^ | NA |
1.30*^ | ||
Anterior to posterior sway - rate of deviation from the mean balance over 30 seconds (%) | 4.60*^ | NA | 4.80*^ | ||
Otman et al. [50] | Walking on treadmill at 1.34 m/s | Energy cost (ml/kg/min) | 13.90* | NA |
12.76*
|
Murley et al. [40] | Over-ground walking (self-selected ± 5%) | TP EMG peak amplitude (initial contact and loading)% | 101.91 (33.9) | A | 89.51 (36.8) |
B |
82.48 (31.8)
| ||||
TP EMG RMS amplitude (initial contact and loading)% | 101.94 (30.9) | A | 89.37 (33.6) | ||
B |
80.01 (25.7)
| ||||
TP EMG peak amplitude (midstance, terminal and pre-swing) (% of gait cycle) | 90.96 (28.8) | A | 89.62 (22.2) | ||
B | 87.34 (27.3) | ||||
TP EMG RMS amplitude (midstance, terminal and pre-swing)% | 89.60 (24.1) | A | 86.92 (17.83) | ||
B | 85.84 (23.9) | ||||
PL EMG peak amplitude (initial contact and loading)% | 80.16 (35.6) | A | 84.70 (42.1) | ||
B | 90.48 (47.3) | ||||
PL EMG RMS amplitude (initial contact and loading)% | 79.44 (27.6) | A | 84.25 (37.5) | ||
B | 98.10 (44.6) | ||||
PL EMG peak amplitude (midstance, terminal and pre-swing) (% of gait cycle) | 62.71 (32.6) | A | 67.78 (33.9) | ||
B |
83.76 (41.9)
| ||||
PL EMG RMS amplitude (midstance, terminal and pre-swing)% | 71.90 (39.9) | A | 79.86 (46.0) | ||
B |
96.07 (47.9)
| ||||
TA EMG peak amplitude (initial contact and loading)% | 116.32 (15.8) | A | 113.49 (15.3) | ||
B | 111.50 (17.4) | ||||
TA EMG RMS amplitude (initial contact and loading)% | 122.02 (19.8) | A | 119.79 (22.0) | ||
B | 113.00 (22.3) | ||||
TP EMG time of peak amplitude (initial contact and loading) (% of gait cycle) | 10.94 (1.7) | A | 11.37 (2.1) | ||
B | 11.10 (2.2) | ||||
TP EMG time of peak amplitude (midstance, terminal and pre-swing) (% of gait cycle) | 44.95 (4.3) | A | 44.92 (3.69) | ||
B | 45.55 (4.1) | ||||
PL EMG time of peak amplitude (initial contact and loading) (% of gait cycle) | 10.65 (3.4) | A | 10.52 (3.5) | ||
B | 10.23 (4.6) | ||||
PL EMG time of peak amplitude (midstance, terminal and pre-swing) (% of gait cycle) | 51.65 (7.0) | A | 50.55 (7.91) | ||
B | 50.26 (7.61) | ||||
TA EMG time of peak amplitude (initial contact and loading) (% of gait cycle) | 6.63 (1.4) | A | 6.28 (1.3) | ||
B | 6.39 (1.4) | ||||
Zammit and Payne [42] | FHSQ reported at baseline and 4 weeks | Increase in FHSQ function subscale (increase in function) | 64.94 (24.0)* | NA |
85.32 (17.7)*
|
Murley and Bird [40] | Over-ground walking (self-selected speed) | PL EMG amplitude (% MVIC) | 88.00 (26.5) | A | 98.00 (32.9) |
B | 107.00 (35.8) | ||||
C | 99.00 (32.6) | ||||
TA EMG amplitude (% MVIC) | 122.00 (38.4) | A | 123.00 (42.2) | ||
B | 129.00 (43.1) | ||||
C | 125.00 (30.0) | ||||
Soleus EMG amplitude (% MVIC) | 256.60 (89.6) | A | 251.93 (95.7) | ||
B | 255.70 (94.5) | ||||
C | 260.92 (98.4) | ||||
Chen et al. [39] | Over-ground walking (1.09 ± 0.11 m/s) | Velocity (cm/s) | 108.57 (11.3) | NA | 109.39 (11.1) |
Cadence (steps/min) | 103.98 (6.8) | NA | 104.73 (5.8) | ||
Step width(cm) | 15.44 (5.2) | NA | 15.44 (5.0) | ||
Step length(cm) | 63.09 (4.9) | NA | 61.81 (4.4) | ||
Stance time (%) | 63.72 (1.7) | NA | 63.93 (1.9) |
Pain
Function change
Rearfoot kinematics
Kinetics
Physical function
Summary of results
Study | Level of evidence | SMD | 95% CI | Domain | Specific outcome | Device | Difference in mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Otman et al. [50] | III | -4.11 | -5.24 to -2.98 | Physical function | ↓ energy cost at 1.34 m/s, 0 incline (ml.kg.min-1) | NA | 1.14 |
Redmond et al. [44] | IV | 1.13 | 0.49 to 1.77 | Kinetics | ↑ force-time integral (midfoot) (N/s) | A | 284.60 |
Mündermann et al. [47] | IV | -0.94* | -1.58 to -0.30 | Kinetics | ↓ peak loading rate (N/s)* | A | 10.50 |
Zammit and Payne [42] | IV | -0.93 | -1.55 to -0.30 | Pain | ↓ FHSQ pain subscale following 4 weeks of use (%) | NA | 21.00 |
Mündermann et al. [47] | IV | -0.90* | -1.54 to -0.26 | Rearfoot kinematics | ↓ peak foot eversion (°) * | C | 2.30 |
Hurd et al. [51] | IV | -0.78* | -1.52 to -0.03 | Kinetics | ↓ peak RF eversion moments (Nm.kg-1) * | A | 0.52 |
Mündermann et al. [47] | IV | -0.75 | -1.38 to -0.13 | Kinetics | ↓ peak ankle inversion moment (Nm)* | C | 6.00 |
Murley et al. [40] | IV | -0.76 | -1.29 to -0.24 | Physical function | ↓ TP EMG RMS amplitude (initial) (%) | B | 21.93 |
Zammit and Payne [42] | IV | -0.76 | -1.37 to -0.14 | Physical function | ↓ FHSQ function subscale following 4 weeks of use (%) | NA | 20.40 |
Johanson et al. [49] | IV | -0.72 | -1.33 to -0.11 | Rearfoot kinematics | ↓ peak RF eversion (°) | A | 2.15 |
Mündermann et al. [47] | IV | -0.68 | -1.30 to -0.06 | Kinetics | ↓ peak loading rate (N/s)* | B | 7.70 |
Redmond et al. [44] | IV | -0.65 | -1.26 to -0.04 | Kinetics | ↓ force-time integral (lateral FF) (N/s) | A | 337.80 |
-0.65 | -1.25 to -0.04 | Kinetics | ↓ force-time integral (medial FF) (N/s) | A | 128.20 | ||
0.63 | 0.02 to 1.24 | Kinetics | ↑ force at midfoot (N) | A | 38.90 | ||
Murley et al. [40] | IV | -0.58 | -1.10 to -0.07 | Physical function | ↓ TP EMG peak amplitude (initial) (%) | B | 19.43 |
Murley et al. [40] | IV | -0.55 | -1.07 to -0.04 | Physical function | ↑ PL EMG peak amplitude (midstance +) (%) | B | 21.05 |
Murley et al. [40] | IV | -0.54 | -1.06 to -0.03 | Physical function | ↑ PL EMG RMS amplitude (midstance +) (%) | B | 18.66 |