MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Foot orthoses for patellofemoral pain in adults

2011· review· en· W1727416179 on OpenAlexaff
Munier Hossain, Paul Alexander, Amanda Burls, Paresh Jobanputra

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoot (prosody)Foot OrthosesMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Foot orthoses, which are specially moulded devices fitted into footwear, are one of the treatment options for patellofemoral or anterior knee pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of foot orthoses for managing patellofemoral pain in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group's Specialised Register (March 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 11), CINAHL (1937 to March 2010), trial registers, reference lists and grey literature. No language restriction was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised clinical studies that compared foot orthoses with flat insoles or another physical therapy intervention. The primary outcomes were knee pain and knee function. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed methodological quality and performed data extraction. We calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous variables, and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables. We pooled data using the fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with a total of 210 participants were included. Both trials were at some risk of performance bias. One trial had four intervention groups and the other had three. One trial found that foot orthoses when compared with flat insoles (control group) had better results at six weeks in knee pain (participants with global improvement: risk ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.99), but not at one year follow-up. Participants in the orthoses group reported significantly more minor adverse effects (e.g. rubbing, blistering) compared with the flat insole group (risk ratio 1.87, 95% confidence intervaI 1.21 to 2.91). Both trials in their comparisons of orthoses plus physiotherapy versus physiotherapy alone found no statistically significant differences between the two intervention groups in knee pain or function. Results for knee pain outcomes did not show significant differences between foot orthoses versus physiotherapy. Although participants in the physiotherapy group had consistently better results for the functional index questionnaire, the clinical relevance of these results is uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While not robust, the available evidence does not reveal any clear advantage of foot orthoses over simple insoles or physiotherapy for patellofemoral pain. While foot orthoses may help relieve knee pain over the short term, the benefit may be marginal. Patients treated with orthoses are more likely to complain of mild adverse effects and discomfort.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207