Skip to main content
. 2020 May 13;13:23. doi: 10.1186/s13047-020-00390-3

Table 4.

Outcome measures Biomechanical

Outcome Study Condition Group Baseline Mean (SD ±/-) Final Mean (SD ±/-) Statistical Result (Significant values given in bold)
Corrective Therapeutic Footwear
 Plantar pressure
  Average peak pressure (kPa): Lateral midfoot Chen et al. (2015) [16]a CTEV Group 1 CTF and DB N/A 62.21 (53.35-71.06) b One-way MANOVA: p=0.005
Group2 DB and Own footwear N/A 94.97 (66.38-123.59) b Post hoc:
Group 1 vs. Group 2 p<0.01
Group 3 FAS and CTF N/A 60.9 (49.26-72.54) b Group 2 vs. Group 3 p<0.01
  Maximum peak pressure (kPa): Hindfoot Group 1 CTF and DB N/A 148.71 (135.49-161.94) b One-way MANOVA: p<0.001
Group2 DB and Own footwear N/A 105.51 (85.73-125.29) b Post hoc:
Group 1 vs Group 2 p<0.01
Group 3 FAS and CTF N/A 164.05 (148.22-179.90) b Group 2 vs. Group 3 p<0.001
  Peak pressure ratio: Heel/forefoot Group 1 CTF and DB N/A 0.72 (0.58-0.87) b One-way MANOVA:
p=0.009
Group2 DB and Own footwear N/A 0.44 (0.29-0.58) b Post hoc
Group 3 FAS and CTF N/A 0.73 (0.61-0.86) b Group 1 vs. Group 2 p<0.01;
Group 2 vs. Group 3 p<0.01
  Peak pressure ratio: Heel/lateral midfoot Group 1 CTF and DB N/A 1.45 (1.19-1.72) b One-way MANOVA:
p<0.001
Group2 DB and Own footwear N/A 0.77 (0.47-1.08) b Post hoc:
Group 3 FAS and CTF N/A 1.98 (1.68-2.29) b Group 1 vs. Group2 p<0.01;
Group 1 vs. Group 3 p<0.01;
Group 2 vs. Group3 p<0.001
Functional Stability Therapeutic Footwear
 Kinematic
  Angle of gait (°) Knittel and Staheli (1976) [41] In toeing SSF - 17.3 (11.9) ANOVA:
p<0.05
FSTF1 - 18.3 (12.4) Post hoc
FSTF2 - 17.7 (13.9) FSTF1 vs. SSF p<0.05
FSTF3 - 16.7 (12.7)
FSTF4 - 17.1 (12.5) FSTF7 vs. SSF p<0.05
FSTF5 - 16.7 (14.2)
FSTF6 - 17.0 (14.3) FSTF8 vs. SSF p<0.05
FSTF7 - 16.9 (12.4)
FSTF8 - 15.6 (14.1) FSTF9 vs. SSF p<0.05
FSTF9 - 10.7 (14.9)
  Max. knee extension (°) stance Jagadamma et al. (2009) [40] Cerebral palsy AFO and SSF - 2.6 (2.8) Wilcoxon signed rank: p=0.04
FSTF+AFO 3.7 (3.3)
  Knee flexion (°) initial contact AFO and SSF 13.7 (8.4) p=0.14
FSTF+AFO 17.2 (5.1)
  Max. knee flexion (°) stance AFO and SSF 19.7 (9.3) p=0.06
FSTF+AFO 25.2 (5.3)
  Shank to vertical angle (SVA) (°) AFO and SSF 5.6 (3) p=0.005
FSTF+AFO 10.8 (1.8)
 Kinetic
  Peak knee flexion moment (N m) stance Jagadamma et al. (2009) [40] Cerebral palsy AFO and SSF 0.59 (0.31) Wilcoxon signed rank: p=0.25
FSTF+AFO 0.7 (0.32)
  Peak Knee extension moment (N m) stance AFO and SSF - 0.44 (0.2) p=0.14
FSTF+AFO - 0.29 (0.24)
 Spatiotemporal
  Base of support (cm) Abd Elkader et al. (2013) [14] Mobile pes planus Group 1 BF 11.80 (1.06) Paired t test:
Group 1 FSTF 9.10 (1.31) Group 1 p<0.05;
Group 2 p<0.05
Group 2 BF 12.63 (1.96) Independent t test
Group 2 FT 9.20 (1.17) BF p=0.12;
FSTF vs. FT p=0.86
  Cadence (Steps/min) Jagadamma et al. (2009) [40] Cerebral palsy AFO and SSF 122.5 (16.6) Paired t test:
FSTF+AFO 122.3 (12.4) p=0.97
  CoP displacement (mm) Aboutorabi et al. (2014) [11] Mobile pes planus BF 6.55 (6.40) Repeated measures ANOVA:
p=0.016
FSTF 5.84 (6.15) Post hoc:
SLS+FO 5.87 (6.40) FSTF vs. BF p<0.05
  Standing balance (s) Wesdock and Edge (2003) [42] Cerebral palsy Group1 SSF (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 11 (13) Mixed model maximum likelihood estimate: p>0.05
Crouch gait Group 1 SSF + AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 18 (23)
Group 1 FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 50 (68)
Group 1 SSF (after 4 weeks wear of FSTF+AFO) 14 (23)
Group 1 SSF + AFO (after 4 weeks wear of FSTF+AFO) 11 (24)
Group 1 FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of FSTF+AFO) 49 (70)
  Difference in standing balance (s) Wesdock and Edge (2003) [42] Cerebral palsy Group 1 SSF vs. SSF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) (-6)-20 b No Statistical test for significance performed
Group1 SSF+AFO vs. FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) (-2)-66b
Group1 SSF vs. FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 7 -73b
Group1 SSF vs. SSF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) (-19)-13b
Group 1 SSF+AFO vs. FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 3-73 b
Group1 SSF vs. FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 0-70 b
Cerebral palsy SSF vs. SSF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 14 (6) after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO
Subset of Group1 all participants who could stand ≥15s SSF+AFO vs. FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 84 (41) SSF vs. FSTF+AFO p<0.05;
SSF vs. FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of solid AFO) 98 (47) SSF+AFO vs. FSTF+AFO p<0.05;
SSF vs. SSF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of FSTF+AFO) - 8 (7) after 4 weeks wear of solid FSTF+AFO
SSF+AFO vs. FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of FSTF+AFO) 101 (25) SSF vs. FSTF+AFO p<0.05;
SSF vs. FSTF+AFO (after 4 weeks wear of FSTF+AFO) 93 (33) SSF+AFO vs. FSTF+AFO p<0.05
(Sig based on 95% Confidence Interval of Group 1 differences in standing balance)
  Step length (cm) Abd Elkader et al. (2013) [14] Down’s Syndrome mobile pes planus Group 1 BF 26.53 (3.72) Paired t test:
Group1 FSTF 30.83 (4.28) Group 1 p<0.05
Group 2 p<0.05
Group 2 BF 25.63 (4.62) Independent t test:
Group 2 FT 30.73 (5.51) BF Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.62;
FSTF vs. FT p=0.95
Aboutorabi et al. (2014) [11] Mobile pes planus BF 37.99 (3.82) Repeated measures ANOVA: p=0.478
FSTF 38.85 (4.97)
SLS+FO 39.05 (4.68)
  Step symmetry (%) Aboutorabi et al. (2014) [11] Mobile pes planus BF -4.90 (4.66) Repeated measures ANOVA: p=0.000
FSTF -2.70 (25.54) Post hoc
SLS+FO 16.08 (31.25) FSTF vs. SLS+FO p<0.05
  Step width (cm) Aboutorabi et al. (2014) [11] Mobile pes planus BF 8.87 (1.61) Repeated measures ANOVA: p=0.170
FSTF 8.91 (1.99)
SLS+FO 9.41 (1.69)
  Stride length (m) Abd Elkader et al. (2013) [14] Down’s Syndrome mobile pes planus Group 1 BF 0.448 (0.06) Paired t test:
Group 1 FSTF 0.504 (0.064) Group 1 p<0.05
Group 2 p<0.05
Group 2 BF 0.455 (0.071) Independent t test:
Group 2 FT 0.524 (0.078) BF Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.82;
FSTF vs. FT p=0.44
Jagadamma et al. (2009) [40] Cerebral palsy AFO and SSF 1.08 (0.19) Paired t test: p=0.54
FSTF+AFO 1.06 (0.20)
  Velocity (m/s) Abd Elkader et al. (2013) [14] Down’s Syndrome mobile pes planus Group 1 BF 0.674 (.059) Paired t test:
Group 1 FSTF 0.775 (0.035) Group 1 p<0.05
Group 2 p<0.05
Group 2 BF 0.672 (0.109) Independent t test:
Group 2 FT 0.762 (0.090) BF Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.95;
FSTF vs. FT p=0.61
Aboutorabi et al. (2014) [11] Mobile pes planus BF 0.727 (0.136) Repeated measures ANOVA: p=0.000
FSTF 0.847 (0.156) Post hoc:
SLS+FO 0.779 (0.128) FSTF vs. BF p<0.05;
SLF +FO vs. BF p<0.05
Jagadamma et al. (2009) [40] Cerebral palsy AFO and SSF 1.08 (0.1) Paired t test: p=0.80
FSTF+AFO 1.07 (0.14)
Functional Instability Therapeutic Footwear
 Balance (Dynamic)
  Anterior posterior control (CoP) Ramstrand et al. (2008) [43]a Cerebral Palsy + mixed developmental disability BF Medium (at 4 weeks) 45.7 (25.5-66.5) b Wilcoxon signed rank
FITF Medium (at 4 weeks) 51.44 (33.7-69.2) b BF vs. FITF Medium at week 4 p<0.05
  Mediolateral control (CoP) BF Slow (baseline) 57.2 (47.0-67.2) b Friedman ANOVA:
BF Slow p<0.05
BF Medium (baseline) 66.4 (52.6-80.1) b Post hoc
BF Slow at week 8 vs. week 4 and baseline p<0.05
Wilcoxon signed rank
BF Slow (at 4 weeks) 69.2 (59.9-78.5) b BF vs. FITF Slow at 8 weeks p<0.05;
BF Medium (at 4 weeks) 75 (67.4-82.6) b BF vs. FITF Medium at 4- and 8-weeks p<0.05
FITF Slow (at 4 weeks) 55.1 (36.3-73) b
FITF Medium (at 4 weeks) 67 (54.3-79.2) b
BF Slow (at 8 weeks) 74.89 (64.9-84.8) b
BF Medium (at 8 weeks) 72.44 (55.1-89.9) b
FITF Slow (at 8 weeks) 57.56 (40.3-74.8) b
FITF Medium (at 8 weeks) 65.33 (44.5-86.2) b
  Number of falls toes up condition Subject 1,2,6,9,10 0 Chi Square:
Subject 3 2 Between testing occasions p<0.05
Subject 4 3
Subjects 5,8 4
Subject 7 10
Subjects 1,5, 8 -10 (at 4 weeks) 0
Subjects 2, 6 (at 4 weeks) Did not participate
Subjects 3 ,4 (at 4 weeks) 1
Subject 7 (at 4 weeks) 2
Subjects 1,2, 4 - 10 (at 8 weeks) 0
Subject 3 (at 8 weeks) 1
Functional Lift Therapeutic Footwear
 Kinematic
  Ankle dorsiflexion at initial contact (°) Eek et al. (2017) [10] Cerebral palsy BF Long leg -2.3d (7.9) e Wilcoxon signed rank:
BF Short leg -9.2d (13.6) e Comparison long to short
FLTF Long leg 4.3d (9.1) e BF p = 0.009;
FLTF Short leg -2d (17) e FLTF p= 0.017;
SSF Long leg 3.5d (9.) e SSF p=0.009
SSF Short leg -6.2d (11.3) e
  Ankle dorsiflexion in stance (°) BF Long leg 11.9d (11.6) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 6.5d (6.4) e BF p = 0.22;
FLTF Long leg 15.1d (4.9) e FLTF p=0.241;
FLTF Short leg 14.4d (8.6) e SSF p=0.022
SSF Long leg 16.5d (2.8) e
SSF Short leg 11.4d (10.7) e
  Ankle dorsiflexion in swing (°) BF Long leg 3.7d (5.8) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 3.2d (5.5) e BF p = 0.007;
FLTF Long leg 6.5d (10.9) e FLTF p=0.037;
FLTF Short leg 2.6d (9.3) e SSF p=0.13
SSF Long leg 5.8d (7.8) e
SSF Short leg 0.5d (10.7) e
  Hip adduction in stance (°) BF Long leg 8.4d (6.4) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 7.4d (4.4) e BF p = 0.959;
FLTF Long leg 6.6d (2.9) e FLTF p=0.646;
FLTF Short leg 9.3d (7.5) e SSF p=0.646
SSF Long leg 7.0d (4.8) e
SSF Short leg 6.3d (4.8) e
  Hip extension in stance (°) BF Long leg 9.6d (6.2) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 11.3d (3.7) e BF p = 0.114
FLTF Long leg 12.8d (8) e FLTF p=0.241
FLTF Short leg 12.3d (5.70e SSF p=0.203
SSF Long leg 11.9d (7.3) e
SSF Short leg 12.5d (5.7) e
  Hip flexion at initial contact (°) BF Long leg 36.3d (9.1) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 29.8d (5.1) e BF p = 0.005;
FLTF Long leg 34.9d (5.4) e FLTF p=0.139;
FLTF Short leg 34.1d (4.1) e SSF p=0.005
SSF Long leg 36.3d (4.3) e
SSF Short leg 30.5d (8.3) e
  Hip flexion in swing (°) BF Long leg 37.3 (6.9) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 33.0 (5.5) e BF p = 0.009;
FLTF Long leg 38.7 (7.3) e FLTF p=0.139;
FLTF Short leg 36.9 (6.1) e SSF p=0.028
SSF Long leg 36.3 (7.5) e
SSF Short leg 33.3 (6.4) e
  Knee extension in stance (°) BF Long leg 7.0d (9.6) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 4.8d (12.6) e BF p = 0.007;
FLTF Long leg 4.9d (10.2) e FLTF p=0.028;
FLTF Short leg 1.9d (10.9) e SSF p=0.007
SSF Long leg 8.8d (10.6)
SSF Short leg 1.6d (8.7) e
  Knee flexion at initial contact (°) BF Long leg 13.4d (6.8) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 11.9d (7.8) e BF p = 0.508;
FLTF Long leg 7.7d (7.5) e FLTF p=0.114;
FLTF Short leg 9.4d (6.7) e SSF p=0.386;
SSF Long leg 7.3d (11.5) e
SSF Short leg 8.10d (7.5) e
  Knee flexion in swing (°) BF Long leg 63.8d (5.0) e Comparison long to short
BF Short leg 62.2d (12.7) e BF p = 0.203;
FLTF Long leg 64.2d (5.2) e FLTF p=0.445;
FLTF Short leg 60.8d (13.4) e SSF p=0.093
SSF Long leg 65.6d (2.7) e
SSF Short leg 62.5d (15.3) e
 Spatiotemporal
  Cadence steps/min Eek et al. (2017) [10] Cerebral palsy BF 100.6d (17.8) e Friedman ANOVA: p>0.05
FLTF 98.4d (25.7) e
SSF 99.3d (24.9) e
  Stance phase % BF Long leg 61.1d (2.03) e Wilcoxon signed rank:
BF Short leg 56.8d (4.0) e Comparison long to short
FLTF Long leg 60.8d (292) e BF p = 0.022;
FLTF Short leg 60.0d (4.16) e FLTF p=0.241;
SSF Long leg 62.5d (1.91) e SSF p=0.005
SSF Short leg 58.9d (3.90) e
  Stride length (m) BF 1.12d (0.13) e Friedman ANOVA: p<0.05
FLTF 1.24d (0.12) e Post hoc:
SSF 1.24d (0.12) e BF vs. FLTF p<0.05;
BF vs. SSF p<0.05
  Velocity (m/s) BF 1.18d (0.16) e Friedman ANOVA: p<0.05
FLTF 1.24d (0.12) e Post hoc:
SSF 1.21d (0.22) e BF vs. FLTF p<0.05

AFO Ankle Foot Orthosis, BF Barefoot, CoP Centre of Pressure, CTEV Congenital Talipes Equino Varus, CTF Corrective Therapeutic Footwear, DB Denis Brown Barred Night Boot, FAS Forefoot Abduct Night Shoe, FITF Functional Instability Therapeutic Footwear, FLTF Functional Lift Therapeutic Footwear, FO Foot Orthoses, FSTF Functional Stability Therapeutic Footwear, N/A Not Applicable, SLF Standard Last Footwear, SSF Standard Sole Footwear, a supplementary results in additional file 3, b 95% Confidence Interval, d Median, e Inter Quartile Range,