Use, tolerability, benefits and side effects of orthotic devices in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shoe inserts, orthopaedic shoes, ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) are important devices in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) management, but data about use, benefits and tolerance are scanty. METHODS: We administered to Italian CMT Registry patients an online ad hoc questionnaire investigating use, complications and perceived benefit/tolerability/emotional distress of shoe inserts, orthopaedic shoes, AFOs and other orthoses/aids. Patients were also asked to fill in the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology questionnaire, rating satisfaction with currently used AFO and related services. RESULTS: We analysed answers from 266 CMT patients. Seventy per cent of subjects were prescribed lower limb orthoses, but 19% did not used them. Overall, 39% of subjects wore shoe inserts, 18% orthopaedic shoes and 23% AFOs. Frequency of abandonment was high: 24% for shoe inserts, 28% for orthopaedic shoes and 31% for AFOs. Complications were reported by 59% of patients and were more frequently related to AFOs (69%). AFO users experienced greater emotional distress and reduced tolerability as compared with shoe inserts (p<0.001) and orthopaedic shoes (p=0.003 and p=0.045, respectively). Disease severity, degree of foot weakness, customisation and timing for customisation were determinant factors in AFOs' tolerability. Quality of professional and follow-up services were perceived issues. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of CMT patients is prescribed shoe inserts, orthopaedic shoes and/or AFOs. Although perceived benefits and tolerability are rather good, there is a high rate of complications, potentially inappropriate prescriptions and considerable emotional distress, which reduce the use of AFOs. A rational, patient-oriented and multidisciplinary approach to orthoses prescription must be encouraged.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".