Table 2.

GRADE evidence profile

Certainty assessment							№ of patients		Effect	Certainty	Importance
№ of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	3D scanning	traditional methods	Relative (95% CI)	Absolute (95% CI)
Forefoot width
[23–25, 27]	observational studies	not serious	seriousa,b	not serious	not serious	none	203	203	–	not estimable	⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW	IMPORTANT
Rearfoot width
[23–25, 27]	observational studies	not serious	seriousa, c	not serious	seriousb	none	203	203	–	not estimable	⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW	IMPORTANT
Arch height (medial)
[23, 24, 27]	observational studies	not serious	serious a, c	not serious	seriousb	none	73	73	–	not estimable	⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW	IMPORTANT
Time spent to cast or scan for foot and ankle (min)
[26]	randomised trials	not serious	not serious	not serious	seriousb	none	64	70	–	MD 1.33 min higher (0.4 lower to 3.1 higher)	⨁⨁⨁◯ MODERATE	CRITICAL
Time spent to cast or scan for foot (min)
[28]	observational studies	very seriousd,e	not serious	not serious	very seriousf	none	1	1	–	not estimable	⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW	IMPORTANT

CI Confidence interval, MD Mean difference

Explanations

^aLarge variation in effect. Some suggest 3D scanning, while some for plaster casting

^bWide 95% CI value which includes favours of both 3D scanning and plaster casting

^cPHigh I-squared value

^dNo description of randomization and lack of blinding

^ePA very small sample size

^fVery few events and no reports of CIs