Effectiveness of Total Contact Insoles in Patients with Plantar Fasciitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of total contact insoles (TCI) in patients with plantar fasciitis (PF). METHODS: A double-blind randomized controlled trial was carried out with intention-to-treat analysis. Seventy-four patients were randomly allocated to use a TCI made of ethylene vinyl acetate (study group, n = 37) or a flat insole (control group, n = 37). The following assessment tools were used: visual analog scale for pain while walking and at rest, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) for quality of life, Foot Function Index and Foot Health Status Questionnaire for foot function, 6-min walk test (6MWT), and baropodometer FootWalk Pro for plantar pressure analysis. The groups were evaluated by a blinded assessor at baseline and after 45, 90, and 180 days. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous for the majority of variables at baseline. The over-time comparisons show a statistical difference between the groups for pain while walking (p = 0.008) and the 6MWT (p = 0.010). Both groups showed significant improvements in pain at rest, foot function, and some quality of life variables (physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, and social functioning), with no significant statistical differences between them. The baropodometer recorded no changes from the use of the insoles. CONCLUSION: A TCI can be used to reduce pain while walking and to increase walking distance in individuals with PF.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".