Solanki 2020.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Randomised controlled two‐arm parallel trial | |
| Participants | 166 children screened, with 70 meeting the criteria, 44 randomised into two arms (22 each) and 44 provided final outcome data Age: children were in 8th and 9th standard in the school (probably 13 and 14 year olds) Gender: boys and girls, no other details provided Location: India Setting: schools in Bardoli, Gujarat, India Inclusion criteria: children with flat feet assessed using 'too many toes' sign, calcaneal angle, and navicular height Exclusion criteria: previous trauma or fracture of lower limb, history of previous surgeries of the lower limb during last 3 months, hypersensitive skin, and any allergy to tape Baseline characteristics: not reported |
|
| Interventions | Group A: anti‐pronation taping + conventional treatment for 4 weeks Group B: sham taping + conventional treatment for 4 weeks A common (4 week) intervention program was executed for both groups as conventional therapy, which included strengthening exercise, stretching, & faradic foot bath that was given for 30 minutes per day |
|
| Outcomes | star excursion balance test (SEBT), vertical jump height (VJH), and Illinois agility test (IAT) measured at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks | |
| Source of funding | not described | |
| Notes | We used 4 weeks of data for the SEBT scores, VJH, and IAT, as the intervention was given for 4 weeks. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | "By use of lottery method, 44 children were randomly selected". We presumed this was drawing of lots. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Allocation was concealed using opaque envelopes. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | It appeared that from the participants' point of view, sham taping was not distinguishable from the anti‐pronation taping. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ self‐reported outcomes (e.g., pain, function) | Low risk | no self‐reported outcomes reported |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ objective outcomes | Low risk | measurement of the outcomes were unlikely to be affected by knowledge of the intervention |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | no withdrawals |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | trial was not registered; baseline characteristics not reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | none apparent |