A systematic review of the effect of footwear, foot orthoses and taping on lower limb muscle activity during walking and running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: External devices are used to manage musculoskeletal pathologies by altering loading of the foot, which could result in altered muscle activity that could have therapeutic benefits. OBJECTIVES: To establish if evidence exists that footwear, foot orthoses and taping alter lower limb muscle activity during walking and running. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: CINAHL, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases were searched. Quality assessment was performed using guidelines for assessing healthcare interventions and electromyography methodology. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included: 22 related to footwear, eight foot orthoses and one taping. In walking, (1) rocker footwear apparently decreases tibialis anterior activity and increases triceps surae activity, (2) orthoses could decrease activity of tibialis posterior and increase activity of peroneus longus and (3) other footwear and taping effects are unclear. CONCLUSION: Modifications in shoe or orthosis design in the sagittal or frontal plane can alter activation in walking of muscles acting primarily in these planes. Adequately powered research with kinematic and kinetic data is needed to explain the presence/absence of changes in muscle activation with external devices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This review provides some evidence that foot orthoses can reduce tibialis posterior activity, potentially benefitting specific musculoskeletal pathologies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".