Foot Orthotic Dosing

The concept of foot orthotic dosing is something that has been bubbling away under the surface for a long time now, but for some reason, not a lot of noise gets made about it, or when noise is made about it, tends to get dismissed by those who want to protect the way they did things.

To introduce the concept, consider this hypothetical analogy: what if a really well conducted clinical trial was done on a very low dose of an anti-hypertensive drug and it shows that the drug does not work at that dose. Should that be used as evidence that the drug is not effective? Of course it shouldn’t, but that is exactly what is done with clinical trials of foot orthoses at low doses. As the methodology and analysis of that hypothetical drug trial was sound, should it be included in the systematic reviews and meta-analyses? It will meet all the textbook criteria to be included in a systematic review and meta-analysis, but, of course, it should not be included as the dose was low. To include it would probably be unethical as it would unreasonably bias the systematic review and meta-analysis in the direction of the drug not working (unless the review stratified the study results into different doses). It makes sense to exclude that study because of the low dose. So, why then is it acceptable to do exactly that in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of foot orthoses?

I will get to what a high dose versus low dose foot orthotic is shortly, but first, consider a hypothetical study that is going to be done in plantar heel pain/plantar fasciitis/plantar fasciopathy that one group is given foot orthotics and the other group is given a different intervention for comparison. This other group could be shock wave therapy or cortisone shots or manual therapy or homeopathy or magnesium supplements (currently the hot topic in plantar fasciitis support groups!). What sort of outcome might that study get? You may get very different results if you use a different dose of foot orthotic. A low dose type foot orthotic may not be much better than the other intervention. A high dose foot orthotic may be massively better than the other intervention (it also may not be, but I am being hypothetical to explain the concept); yet almost all foot orthotics that are used in clinical trials to date are mostly what I would call low dose foot orthotics.

Exactly what are high versus low dose foot orthotics? I consider it to be a high dose when the foot orthotic has the design features that are directed at the pathology present and a low dose when the design features are just generic. In the case of plantar fasciitis, I would consider a high dose foot orthotic to be one that inverts the rearfoot, everts the forefoot, is more rigid if the person is heavier, has a plantar fascial groove if the plantar fascia is prominent and has a short-term heel raise if the calf muscles are tight; ie the design features that have been shown to actually reduce the load in the plantar fascia (I can get into the rationale, thought processes and evidence underpinning these design features another time). When it comes to custom-made devices, a low dose foot orthotic would have a generic custom molded plastic shell with a heel post. When you look at all the clinical trials on plantar fasciitis, they all use a low dose type design that does not represent expert clinical practice. Not one of them uses what I consider a high dose device, which I consider represents good clinical practice – it is certainly what the clinical experts and thought leaders are doing clinically. So how fair are the clinical trials of foot orthoses in plantar fasciitis?

All the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of custom-made vs prefabricated foot orthoses and those of foot orthotics in plantar fasciitis conclude that there is no difference between custom made and premade and the effects sizes for plantar fasciitis are either none or small. All of the studies in those reviews used the low dose designs. How much information or guidance do those reviews really provide for clinical practice? None?

If you were to do a systematic review or meta-analysis on custom-made foot orthotics versus prefabricated foot orthotics, then you would have your standard textbook inclusion criteria (eg sample size, blinding, randomization, etc) to select the studies to include. However, surely, an appropriate inclusion criteria would also be something along the lines of the foot orthoses used in the studies are of the type and use that is commonly used in clinical practice by expert clinicians? For the custom made group, for example, did the studies include a plantar fascial groove if the plantar fascia was prominent (none of the studies I recall did that – and that may or may not be very important in plantar fasciitis); did they make the orthotic more rigid if the person was heavier (none did that either, most just use the same thickness of plastic for all); was there a first ray cut-out added if functional hallux limitus was present (none of them did that either); was the bulk of material in the device on the medial side of the highly variable subtalar joint axis if the rearfoot inversion moment needed to be reduced?; etc; in other words not one of the studies that used custom made foot orthotics used them in a way that they are typically and commonly used in clinical practice by expert clinicains, so they all should be excluded from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

So what do the systematic reviews and meta-analyses tell us about the difference between custom made foot orthotics and prefabricated foot orthotics. Depends: if you have a superficial understanding and knowledge of foot orthotics then you accept what they say. If you have a deeper understanding of foot orthotics and appreciate the differences between low dose and high does custom-made foot orthotics, then the conclusion of the reviews is not valid as none of the studies that they included should have been included! That does not mean that if appropriate high dose custom-made designs were used that there may still be no difference (there may or may not be); what the evidence says to me is that we do not know, as no one has done the study.

The most recent meta-analysis of foot orthoses in plantar heel pain made the conclusion that:

Foot orthoses are not superior for improving pain and function compared with sham or other conservative treatment in patients with PHP.

Did it really show that? Of course, it did not come close to showing that. Look at all the studies that they included to reach that conclusion. They were all studies using a low dose design of foot orthotic. None one of the studies included actually used foot orthotics design features that have the high dose design that actually has been shown to reduce the load in the plantar fascia! The authors superficial understanding of foot orthotics led them to include studies that should have been rejected as the foot orthotics used were not of the design that an expert clinician/thought leaders would use in clinical practice.

Time for another analogy: in the early days of shockwave therapy for plantar fasciitis, the initial uncontrolled studies showed some pretty awesome results. Once control groups started to be added, the initial results were mixed. There was one very early controlled study that was particularly well done that showed that it was ineffective. I recall it being published and I was impressed with it and stuck up for it in some online discussions on it. At that time clinicians were screaming out that that study had fatal flaws – I was dismissive of them as they just did not like the results, as the results looked pretty sound to me – the methods were good and the analysis was appropriate etc. I could not get what they were on about. Now the early systematic reviews of shock wave therapy for heel pain were not that good for its use, most likely under the influence of that very well done study that showed it did not work. Over time, more controlled studies were done that showed it worked (a few showed it did not work); so up to the present day the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses generally conclude now that it is effective. What I failed to grasp years ago is what was making those clinicians crying foul over that early well done negative study – what the study did was use the shockwave at a low dose; it was used at a dose below what clinicians at the time were using in clinical practice. That is why they called it fatally flawed. That then raises the question about should it have been included in the systematic reviews and meta-analyses? With hindight, I don’t think it should have been. Can you see how it would have biased them in the direction of shock wave therapy not working? Compare that to the opening analogy above on that hypothetical low dose of an anti-hypertensive drug. This starts to raise all sorts of ethical issues. Should that low dose of shockwave study be included in the systematic reviews and meta-analyses? Then, why include foot orthotics at low dose studies?

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are supposed to be one way of eliminating bias when interpreting the pool of literature on a topic. I think the above illustrates that this is clearly not the case at all.

Another way to address this could be when researchers present their foot orthotic studies at conferences, they should describe how they did the foot orthotics in the study and then ask for a show of hands from the audience as to how many do it that way clinically. I think they will be shocked to see how many don’t put their hands up. If most of the audience do not put up their hands, then whatever the results of the study, how useful is it going to be to inform clinical practice? Last week I did a webinar on this very topic. A week before I posted a note on Facebook that I was doing this, I mentioned the low dose anti-hypertensive analogy – it triggered quite a discussion on the whole topic. One comment posted has stuck in my mind and gnawed at me ever since:What happens at conferences: researchers present their research, telling clinicians how their work informs clinical practice; other researchers pat them on the back for an awesome job (I do know how much work goes into these studies); but the clinicians sit there rolling there eyes: “nope”. This is an oversimplified generalization but will continue until research is done that is translatable; that is the high dose foot orthoses used in studies are those that would be used by expert clinicians and thought leaders. If it is not useful to inform clinical practice, then whats the point? Research translation is not something to just pay lip service to.

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





Added:
We just did a PodChatLive on this topic:

Please subscribe to our PodChatLive channel

Advertisement:

SaleBestseller No. 1
Brightech LightView Pro 6 Wheel Rolling Base Magnifying Floor Lamp - Magnifier with Bright LED Light for Facials, Lash Extensions - Standing Mag Lamp for Sewing, Cross Stitch, Crafts
  • BIG, BRIGHT & DIMMABLE MAGNIFYING LIGHT TO SEE SMALL DETAILS EASILY: This magnifier lamp was designed to ease your close up focus, even with vision problems such as aging eyes or macular degeneration. This lamp includes a built in dimmer switch so you get exactly the right light. The 3" wide, diopter glass magnifying lens will magnify whatever you are working on up to 175%. The LED lights don't get hot so you can enjoy your hobbies comfortably.
  • COMFORT & EASE OF USE FOR PROFESSIONALS: HANDSFREE USE & SMOOTH ROLL EVEN ON BAD SURFACES: Free both hands to work thanks to the flexible arms and pivoting head get the light and lens right where you want it; the powerful springs then keep it in place. The 6 wheels roll easily, making it perfect for spas and salons, estheticians, dermatologists, beauticians, jewelers, tattoo artists, dentists etc. Facials lash extensions and other treatments are a cinch.
  • REVIEWS: GREAT FOR READING, SEWING, KNITTING, QUILTING, PUZZLES, CROCHET, CROSS STITCH etc: Reviewers say this light helps them enjoy hobbies by reducing eye strain and avoiding headaches. Plus they feel greater pride and achievement in as a result of more precise detail work. Beside those mentioned, soldering, painting (e.g. minis), woodworking, drawing, repair of small electronics and fly trying are other common uses.
  • REAL DIOPTER GLASS MAGNIFIES 1.75X & 20 YEAR LIFE LED LIGHTS FOR MAX DURABILITY - AVOID REPLACEMENT HASSLES - The genuine diopter glass means the lens doesn't warp with time or heat, and is also scratch resistant. So it lasts longer than cheap acrylic/plastic lenses. This model features 1.75X magnification with things in focus at a distance of 13 inches. The 9W & 800 lumen LED lights are built in and last 20,000 hours - about 20 years if you use the Brightech Lightview Pro 3 hours every day!
  • BRIGHTECH'S 3 YEAR PRODUCT WARRANTY: We proudly stand behind all of our products 100%, which is why we offer a full 3 year warranty. If your lamp has any defect or stops working within 3 years, we help you troubleshoot and/or send replacement parts or a whole new product. If any problems arise, please contact us because our number one goal is customer satisfaction.
SaleBestseller No. 2
McGlamry's Comprehensive Textbook of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Volume 1 and Volume 2
  • Used Book in Good Condition
  • Hardcover Book
  • English (Publication Language)
  • 2112 Pages - 11/17/2012 (Publication Date) - LWW (Publisher)
Bestseller No. 3
CYTING Foot Doctor Keychain The Human Foot is A Masterpiece of Engineering and A Work of Art Podiatry Keychain Graduation Gift for Podiatrist Appreciation Gift (Podiatrist Keychain)
  • 👣"The human foot is a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art" Podiatry keychain - Whether you're a Podiatrist, Podiatrist student or grad, or looking for a gift for one, this podiatrist keychain is a perfect keepsake!
  • 👣Are you looking for a fantastic gift that a Podiatrist will remember forever due to its uniqueness and thoughtfulness? Do you want an amazing looking gift dedicated to Podiatrists that will make their eyes light up as soon as they see it? A gift to a podiatrist and original gift for a surgeon.
  • 👣The podiatrist keychain is packed in a velvet bag ready for giving. This foot doctor keychain would be perfect for a podiatrist or for someone who works in a podiatrist office.
  • 👣Material👣: Stainless Steel and alloy, they are lead free and nickel free. Stainless steel is hypo allergenic, it doesn’t rust, change colour or tarnish.
  • 👣Measure👣: bar pendant: 5cm (1.97") * 1.2cm (0.47"), key ring diameter: 3cm (1.18"). A great design for yourself or your favorite Podiatrist!
SaleBestseller No. 4
The Podiatry Practice Business Solution: Everything You Need to Know to Flourish in Your Podiatry Business
  • Hardcover Book
  • Wishnie, Peter (Author)
  • English (Publication Language)
  • 174 Pages - 02/28/2020 (Publication Date) - Stonebrook Pub. (Publisher)
SaleBestseller No. 5
Mann’s Surgery of the Foot and Ankle, 2-Volume Set: Expert Consult: Online and Print (Coughlin, Surgery of the Foot and Ankle 2v Set)
  • Mosby
  • Hardcover Book
  • Saltzman MD, Charles L. (Author)
  • English (Publication Language)
  • 2336 Pages - 11/06/2013 (Publication Date) - Mosby (Publisher)
Bestseller No. 6
Podiatry Axial/Sesamoid Weight Bearing Sponge (Closed Cell)
  • Closed Cell - 13" x 8" x 4"
  • Closed Cell Sponges are made from a lightweight, radiolucent, non-porous foam. The perfect solution for any positioning need. These positioning sponges are entirely fluid resistant, easy to clean and extremely durable! Featured in a non-coated, premium charcoal grey color.
  • Closed cell sponges are 100% Radiolucent for artifact free imaging. Cleanable, fluid resistant surface. Lightweight and comfortable. Closed cell is the number one option in positioning sponges.
  • Stealth Sponges are designed with proprietary "flared" angles to offer significantly reduced artifacts during viewing. Flared sides will increase overall size. Non-Stealth Sponges are formed with traditional angles and do not feature our proprietary "flared" angles to offer significantly reduced artifacts during viewing. Non-stealth (or non-flared) sides may show artifacts when imaging, specifically when coating is applied.
  • Returns of this item can be made within ten (10) business days from delivery and are subject to a 25% restocking fee. All genuine Techno-Aide products are guaranteed for one year from the initial date of purchase for defects in material and workmanship. Proudly made in the USA and sold by a Veteran Owned Small Business.
SaleBestseller No. 7
Watkins' Manual of Foot and Ankle Medicine and Surgery
  • LWW
  • Watkins, Leon (Author)
  • English (Publication Language)
  • 732 Pages - 12/21/2016 (Publication Date) - LWW (Publisher)
SaleBestseller No. 8
Foot and Ankle Radiology
  • Hardcover Book
  • English (Publication Language)
  • 624 Pages - 12/31/2014 (Publication Date) - LWW (Publisher)
SaleBestseller No. 9
Operative Techniques in Foot and Ankle Surgery
  • Hardcover Book
  • English (Publication Language)
  • 1394 Pages - 10/19/2016 (Publication Date) - LWW (Publisher)
SaleBestseller No. 10
Professional Double Ended Nail Curette 1.5/2.5mm Dermal Ingrown Toenail Cleaner Scoop Chiropody Podiatry Tools
  • Manufactured from High Quality Medical Grade Stainless Steel
  • Nail Cleaning and Care Instruments
  • One End Has 1.5mm Scoop While the Other Has 2.5mm Cup
  • Dual-Use Tool is For Trimming Cuticles, Cleaning Fingernails and Giving Manicures Pedicure
  • Removes Non-living Tissue Around the Cuticles, Cleaning Under the Nails and Along Side Walls

I get commissions for purchases made through links on this website. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *