Table 2.

Prevention studies: summary of included studies

Author/s	Population	Participants	Insole & Comparison	Intervention	Time (weeks)	Quality score
Fauno, 1993	Soccer referees in 5 day competition	121 majority male Age: 35.90 ± 9.95 Randomised: 121 Analysed: 91	Prefabricated shock absorbing heel insoles, 8 mm thick vs No insole	Referees wore inserts in shoes for average of 870 minutes over 5 days	0.7	68%
Larsen, 2002	New military recruits starting training in a Danish regiment	145 male, 1 female Age: 18–24 Randomised: 146 Analysed: 121	Prefabricated (heat moulded) semi rigid orthoses vs No insole	Conscripts told to wear orthoses whenever wearing military boots	12	79%
Mattila, 2011	New military recruits starting service in Finland	All male Age: 19(18–29) Randomised: 220 Analysed: 220	Prefabricated polyethylene (heat moulded) ¾ length orthoses vs No insole	Participants told to use insoles in their ankle boots during daily service time	24	86%
Milgrom, 2005	New military recruits without a history of low back pain during basic training	All male Age: 18.80 ± 0.70 Randomised: 404 Analysed: 179	Custom semirigid biomechanical orthoses vs Custom soft biomechanical orthoses vs Simple shoe inserts (placebo)	Recruits monitored for compliance, but usage not stated in article	14	75%
Schwellnus, 1990	New military recruits doing standard training	All male Age: 18.50 ± 1.20 Randomised: 1511 Analysed: 1388	Prefrabricated flat neoprene insoles vs No insole	Recruits given instructions to wear insoles daily in the standard footwear	9	68%
Tooms, 1987	Senior nursing students whose work required prolonged standing or walking	Sex unknown Age: 22.85 ± 5.35 Randomised: 100 Analysed: 100	Prefrabricated viscoelastic insoles vs No insole	Participants requested to wear insoles in their regular work shoes	5	64%