ArticleHeliyon2024
Physicians' experiences with indications and prescriptions of foot orthoses-A cross-sectional study in northern Germany.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Foot orthoses (FOs) are prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) and orthopedic surgeons for various complaints. As there are very limited medical guidelines and checklists, the prescription of FOs is often inconsistent. Therefore, our study to evaluate the general prescription behavior and indication experiences with FOs from the perspective of GPs and orthopedists. Methods: A survey was carried out using a questionnaire from October to December 2021. GPs and orthopedic surgeons in northern Germany were included. The focus of the survey was to examine which foot problems would lead GPs and orthopedic surgeons to prescribe FOs and to evaluate what factors these physicians included in their diagnostic analysis. Apart from descriptive analyses, a stepwise linear regression analysis was performed to explore potential associations of the primary outcome variable 'specific effect on the prescription of FOs', which was introduced to shed light upon the estimated added value of the prescription of FOs. Results: Out of the 790 questionnaires distributed, 184 questionnaires were returned by GPs (n = 95) and orthopedic surgeons (n = 74) (response rate 23 %). FOs were most frequently prescribed for talipes valgus (96 %) and heel spur (54 %). Diagnostic analysis was mainly carried out clinically. Custom-made FOs (82 %) were prescribed more frequently than prefabricated FOs (6 %). Regular interaction within the prescription process was most commonly with orthopedic technicians (61 %). The estimation of the specific effect on FO prescription was assessed by a mean of 66 % of the participants, 82 % recommended self-exercises as an additional therapy. Conclusions: FOs are a specific and well-established aid prescribed by many GPs and orthopedic surgeons for a variety of foot complaints. Despite being one of the most frequently prescribed orthopedic devices, the utilization of FOs is predominantly explorative due to a growing but nevertheless still deficient body of well-researched evidence. There is a clear need for a uniform approach to the indication and prescription of FOs among physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.