Plantar fasciitis loading programs – overhyped evidence

I have managed to get myself into a few spats in social media lately over the results of the Rathleff et al (2014) study on loading programs for plantar fasciitis mainly because I think the study is way overhyped and blindly and widely shared by too many devoid of critical thinking skills. I blogged about this study at the time on my other blog, so thought I would re-litigate the main issues here, so I can refer those in my social media spats to have a read of.

Firstly, I do clinically use the loading/strengthening program that is advocated in this study, have been using it and teaching it in my Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camps since before the study was published, so I like it and think it is important to do. I use it as it makes sense to do so. The approach I have long advocated for plantar fasciitis is to deal with that initial ‘hot’ phase (ice, NSAIDs; strapping); then reduce loads (activity modification; foot orthotics with the right design features (getting that right is important); stretching); then loading and strengthening; then return to full activity plan; if that does not go according to desired outcomes, then do things to facilitate healing (eg shockwave, injection therapy, etc). Above all, plantar fasciitis is a mechanical problem and needs mechanical solutions (initially reduce loads, then increase loads).

So what is the problem I have with the Rathlef et al study? The problem I have, is the hype and importance that is given to it. It is way over hyped. It still gets widely promoted in social media. The strength of evidence that the study gives to the use of a loading program is really low, if at all. It should not make it into a meta-analysis or any sort of consensus document because of that weakness (unless, of course, those writing the consensus document want to use it to confirm their preconceived biases).

The study randomized participants with plantar fasciitis into two groups. One group got the strengthening/loading program and the other a stretching program. Both groups got better, but at 3 months the loading program group did better. On the surface that looks like a good outcome for loading programs.

However, both groups were also given silicone heel pads which we know from the Pfeffer et al (1999) study that they work in plantar fasciitis. Both groups were probably going to get better because of that. It could easily have been that both the stretching and loading/strengthening actually delayed healing but they still got better because of the silicone heel pads. The claimed results that the loading group did better could easily be explained by the loading/strengthening not delaying healing as much as the stretching group. The study did not have a ‘no treatment’ group or control group. Now, in all honesty, I very much doubt that is what happened, but because it remains a possibility to explain the results, you can see why I think the results of the study are way over-hyped and given too much weight. This is also why the strength of the design of the study is so weak, as we do not know how a placebo or no treatment group would have gone (or preferably, a group just given the silicone inserts). If there was a third group that just had the silicone insert, then presumably this group would have improved (as the Pfeffer study showed), so how much better than that would have the stretching and strengthening/loading groups have been, if at all? We just do not know.

Another issue, and I on shaky grounds saying this, is look at the graph in the paper of the results. Look at the reduction in the Foot Function Index at say 3 months and at 6 months. How well do you think you would be doing in clinical practice if that was all you were getting in your patients? Like I said, I on shaky grounds saying this as this is the artificial environment of a clinical trial, but if you are not getting those levels of pain reduction at 1 month, then you probably need to take a serious look at your clinical practice as to why.

…nuff said. Critical thinking please. Next.

Please sign up for my newsletter when a new content is posted:









Schadenfreude


One probably should not laugh at another’s misfortune, but sometimes it can just not be helped. For those unfamiliar with it, schadenfreude is the German word for just that. There is not an equivalent English word. I recently, twice, had a really good schadenfreude. This had nothing to do with podiatry or the foot, but has everything to do with pseudoscience and junk science.

A predatory journal is the lowest of the low when it comes to the quality of the science that they publish. They have no impact factor and they are a business model based on exploiting academics; and they typically have no or low standards when it comes to the pre-publication peer review process. In other words, a lot of crap gets published in the predatory journals. So if you do crap research and it gets rejected from a decent journal with a good impact factor, then you can assume that a predatory journal might publish your crap. Hylton Menz has blogged about some predatory foot and ankle journals and here is the Wikipedia entry on open access predatory journals.

My schadenfreude involves a really really badly done study comparing the health of vaccinated kids to unvaccinated kids that was published in a predatory journal, presumably as no decent journal would publish it. I won’t get into what is wrong with it as Skeptical Raptor did a good job on that here. Needless to say, the anti-vaccination cult were having all sorts of excitement over this one, once again showing their lack of critical thinking skills as to what was wrong with the study. It really was that bad, but do they care? Of course not, as it fits in with their narrative and preconceived biases. The schadenfreude happened when the cult reacted to the bottom dwelling predatory journal actually retracting the study in the way that they did. Predatory journals do not retract studies, but this study was so bad that this predatory Journal actually did it! Orac did a good job of laughing at the reaction of the cult to the retraction.

Of course, the retraction happened because it was simply bad science; but the cult are so convinced that it is a BigPharma conspiracy that was behind it. That is how blinded by their faith that they are. They are too blinded to understand what is good and bad science and their track record is that they do not do science very well at all (which is why they have the beliefs that they do). The hilarity of their reaction to the retraction is where the schadenfreude comes in.

To add to that it was not long before the exact same study turned up in yet another predatory journal! As reported by Retraction Watch, the study was retracted again by this journal as well. How about that: a study so bad that two predatory journals actually retract it after letting it through their pathetic peer review processes! Yet the cult still think it is one big conspiracy against them. Surely it should be bleedin obvious that there is actually something wrong with the study and that is why two predatory journals retracted it!

The really sad part of all this is the shear futility of trying to engage with cult members over research methodology quality and the actual problems with the study. No matter what you say and do, they can not see it and you are just part of the big conspiracy. They then use the usual gambit of logical fallacies. This puts you on the receiving end of their hate and vitriol, which speaks volumes about what sort of human beings they are. Been there, done that. All you have left then is to ridicule their stupidity, enjoy the schadenfreude that this causes them and wonder how they manage to function day-to-day in society.

Please sign up for my newsletter when a new content is posted: