| Title |
Foot orthoses in the treatment of symptomatic midfoot osteoarthritis using clinical and biomechanical outcomes: a randomised feasibility study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-015-2946-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jill Halstead, Graham J. Chapman, Janine C. Gray, Andrew J. Grainger, Sarah Brown, Richard A. Wilkins, Edward Roddy, Philip S. Helliwell, Anne-Maree Keenan, Anthony C. Redmond |
| Abstract |
This randomised feasibility study aimed to examine the clinical and biomechanical effects of functional foot orthoses (FFOs) in the treatment of midfoot osteoarthritis (OA) and the feasibility of conducting a full randomised controlled trial. Participants with painful, radiographically confirmed midfoot OA were recruited and randomised to receive either FFOs or a sham control orthosis. Feasibility measures included recruitment and attrition rates, practicality of blinding and adherence rates. Clinical outcome measures were: change from baseline to 12 weeks for severity of pain (numerical rating scale), foot function (Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index) and patient global impression of change scale. To investigate the biomechanical effect of foot orthoses, in-shoe foot kinematics and plantar pressures were evaluated at 12 weeks. Of the 119 participants screened, 37 were randomised and 33 completed the study (FFO = 18, sham = 15). Compliance with foot orthoses and blinding of the intervention was achieved in three quarters of the group. Both groups reported improvements in pain, function and global impression of change; the FFO group reporting greater improvements compared to the sham group. The biomechanical outcomes indicated the FFO group inverted the hindfoot and increased midfoot maximum plantar force compared to the sham group. The present findings suggest FFOs worn over 12 weeks may provide detectable clinical and biomechanical benefits compared to sham orthoses. This feasibility study provides useful clinical, biomechanical and statistical information for the design and implementation of a definitive randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of FFOs in treating painful midfoot OA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 13 | 45% |
| Australia | 3 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 55% |
| Scientists | 10 | 34% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 28 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,300,717
of 24,473,185 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#106
of 3,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,441
of 269,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,473,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.