THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CUSTOM FOOT ORTHOSIS VERSUS PLACEBO ORTHOSIS ON CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN AMONG PATIENTS WITH FLATFEET: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

V. C. I. Dones, Christoffer Von D. Caet, Jenneli Natasha S. Agdeppa, Jan Paolo J. De Guzman, Anne Dessiree P. Dungo, Jasmin Rose M. Dupalco, Janine Debianca T. Manggalo, Hanjeriel D. Melchor, Clarissa Louise R. Tolentino, Glendon Vince M. Torres
{"title":"THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CUSTOM FOOT ORTHOSIS VERSUS PLACEBO ORTHOSIS ON CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN AMONG PATIENTS WITH FLATFEET: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS","authors":"V. C. I. Dones, Christoffer Von D. Caet, Jenneli Natasha S. Agdeppa, Jan Paolo J. De Guzman, Anne Dessiree P. Dungo, Jasmin Rose M. Dupalco, Janine Debianca T. Manggalo, Hanjeriel D. Melchor, Clarissa Louise R. Tolentino, Glendon Vince M. Torres","doi":"10.46409/002.geyd7059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of foot orthosis in treating chronic low back pain among patients with flatfeet. \n\nMethods: This systematic review followed the JBI methodology for systematic reviews and was registered with PROSPERO. The search strategy involved a three-step process to identify both published and unpublished studies from various databases without language or date restrictions. After title & abstract screening then full-text screening, selected studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, with domains such as attrition, reporting, detection, selection, and performance bias considered. The data extraction was done using a standardized JBI tool, and statistical analysis utilized RevMan 5.4 software. The GRADE approach was employed to evaluate the certainty of evidence and outcomes included information on risk, relative risk, quality of evidence, and various factors influencing it. \n\nResults: Out of 3,102 papers, only 2 were included in the study. With a total of 152 participants, 80 were assigned to the experimental group while 70 in the control group. Statistical analysis reveals a reduction in pain with a mean difference of 3.50 (95% CI, 95% CI, 4.04, 2.97) & improvement in disability with a mean difference of 13.87 (95% CI, 16.37, 11.37). No significant heterogeneity were calculated as indicated by an I² of 0%. \n\nDiscussion: Findings suggest that both CFO is more effective than placebo orthosis in treating back pain and disability. However, statistical analysis reveals that CFO is clinically significant in treating only back-pain related disability and not back pain per se. The review acknowledges a scarcity of compelling evidence from prior research, underscoring the necessity for additional research to confirm the broader effectiveness of foot orthotics in managing low back pain.","PeriodicalId":156633,"journal":{"name":"Philippine Journal of Physical Therapy","volume":"118 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philippine Journal of Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46409/002.geyd7059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of foot orthosis in treating chronic low back pain among patients with flatfeet. Methods: This systematic review followed the JBI methodology for systematic reviews and was registered with PROSPERO. The search strategy involved a three-step process to identify both published and unpublished studies from various databases without language or date restrictions. After title & abstract screening then full-text screening, selected studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, with domains such as attrition, reporting, detection, selection, and performance bias considered. The data extraction was done using a standardized JBI tool, and statistical analysis utilized RevMan 5.4 software. The GRADE approach was employed to evaluate the certainty of evidence and outcomes included information on risk, relative risk, quality of evidence, and various factors influencing it. Results: Out of 3,102 papers, only 2 were included in the study. With a total of 152 participants, 80 were assigned to the experimental group while 70 in the control group. Statistical analysis reveals a reduction in pain with a mean difference of 3.50 (95% CI, 95% CI, 4.04, 2.97) & improvement in disability with a mean difference of 13.87 (95% CI, 16.37, 11.37). No significant heterogeneity were calculated as indicated by an I² of 0%. Discussion: Findings suggest that both CFO is more effective than placebo orthosis in treating back pain and disability. However, statistical analysis reveals that CFO is clinically significant in treating only back-pain related disability and not back pain per se. The review acknowledges a scarcity of compelling evidence from prior research, underscoring the necessity for additional research to confirm the broader effectiveness of foot orthotics in managing low back pain.
定制足部矫形器与安慰剂矫形器对扁平足患者慢性腰背痛的疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析
简介本研究旨在确定足部矫形器对治疗扁平足患者慢性腰背痛的效果。研究方法:本系统综述遵循 JBI 系统综述方法,并在 PROSPERO 注册。检索策略包括三个步骤,从各种数据库中识别已发表和未发表的研究,没有语言和日期限制。先筛选标题和摘要,再筛选全文,然后使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具对所选研究进行偏倚评估,考虑自然减员、报告、检测、选择和表现偏倚等因素。数据提取采用标准化的 JBI 工具,统计分析采用 RevMan 5.4 软件。采用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性,结果包括风险、相对风险、证据质量和各种影响因素等信息。研究结果在 3,102 篇论文中,只有 2 篇被纳入研究。共有 152 名参与者,其中 80 人被分配到实验组,70 人被分配到对照组。统计分析显示,疼痛减轻的平均差异为 3.50(95% CI,95% CI,4.04,2.97),残疾改善的平均差异为 13.87(95% CI,16.37,11.37)。I²为0%,表明计算结果无明显异质性。讨论研究结果表明,在治疗背痛和残疾方面,CFO 比安慰剂矫形器更有效。然而,统计分析表明,CFO 仅在治疗与背痛相关的残疾方面具有临床意义,而在治疗背痛本身方面则没有。该综述承认之前的研究缺乏令人信服的证据,强调有必要进行更多的研究,以确认足部矫形器在治疗腰背痛方面的广泛有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信