Table 1.
Treatment studies: summary of included studies
| Author/s | Population | Participants | Insole & Comparison | Intervention | Time (weeks) | Quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Almeida, 2009 |
Assembly line workers with work related musculoskeletal symptoms in the lumbar spine or lower limb |
All female Age: 30.30 ± 7.09 Randomised: 27 Analysed: 27 |
Prefabricated (heat moulded Ethylene vinyl acetate) orthoses, individually customised vs Prefabricated simple insoles (placebo) |
Participants were instructed to wear the insoles daily with the work uniform |
8 |
78% |
| Basford, 1988 |
Office and laboratory workers whose job requires standing at least 75% of the day |
All female Age: 39.00 ± 12.00 Randomised: 96 Analysed: 64 |
Prefabricated viscoelastic polyurethane orthoses, 1.3 mm at toe to 5 mm at heel (crossover trial) |
Insoles were fitted to participants normal work shoes |
5 |
57% |
| Cambron, 2011 |
Chronic LBP patients responding to advert |
22 male, 28 female Age: 52.00 ± 16.00 Randomised: 50 Analysed: 46 |
Custom made polymer orthoses (flexible with arch support) |
Participants given procedures for proper use of orthotics (but not detailed in article) |
6 & 12 |
71% |
| Castro-Mendez, 2013 |
Chronic LBP patients with a Foot Posture Index (FPI-6) indicating at least one pronated foot |
9 male, 51 female Age: 40.63 ± 14.63 Randomised: 60 Analysed: 51 |
Custom mould polypropylene & polyethylene orthoses in subtalar neutral position vs Flat polyester resin insole (placebo) |
Participants were asked to wear the foot orthotics for at least 8 hours per day |
4 |
79% |
| Shabat, 2005 | Workers whose job required long distance walking & who suffered from LBP | 25 male, 35 female Age: 39.14 Randomised: 60 Analysed: 57 | Custom made viscoelastic polymer orthoses to support the foot vs Flat insole (placebo) | Participants were permitted to use insoles during work or non-work time | 5 | 75% |