Trial reportScientific reports2026
Information and communications technology-based versus handout-based home exercise programs for heel pain syndrome: a prospective randomized study.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the clinical outcomes of information and communications technology (ICT)-based home exercise programs using the exercise therapy platform (ETP™) with traditional handout-based programs for treating heel pain syndrome. Eighty-seven patients with heel pain syndrome (plantar fasciitis or Achilles tendinitis) were randomly assigned to either an ICT-based ETP™ (n = 44) or a traditional handout-based (n = 43) home exercise program. Both groups performed the same exercises for 12 weeks. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 4, 12, and 24 weeks using a visual analog scale (VAS) for first-step pain (primary outcome), pain at rest and during activity, foot function index (FFI), Short Form-36 (SF-36) score, and self-reported recovery. In the ETP™ group, mean improvement in VAS score for first-step pain exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.9 at all follow-up points, whereas the handout group did not achieve MCID at 4 weeks (1.4 ± 1.9). However, the mixed-effects model did not demonstrate a statistically significant between-group difference for first-step pain. For FFI, the ETP™ group showed greater improvement than the handout group at 4 weeks (between-group difference in change − 16.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 32.34 to − 0.99; p = 0.037; Hedges g = − 0.47) and 24 weeks (− 16.37, 95% CI − 32.04 to − 0.69; p = 0.041; g = − 0.39). For SF-36 PCS, improvement was significantly greater in the ETP™ group at 24 weeks than in the handout group (8.90, 95% CI 2.41 to 15.40; p = 0.007; g = 0.47). Self-reported recovery rates were higher in the ETP™ group at 12 and 24 weeks. In this study, both interventions improved symptoms of heel pain syndrome. Although the ETP™ group demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in first-step pain and greater improvements in some secondary outcomes, no statistically significant between-group difference was observed for the primary outcome. These findings suggest potential benefits of ICT-based exercise therapy platforms, and further studies are needed to confirm their comparative effectiveness. Trial registration Retrospectively registered with the Clinical Research Information Services (identifier KCT0010211, registration date: 19/02/2025).
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.