Morrison 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised controlled two‐arm parallel trial
Participants	22 children were approached to participate in the study. All were male, white, British, and FPI > +4 20 children consented to participate, then 5 failed to attend. 1 participant withdrew 14 participants (median age 7.5 years) completed the study Age: aged 6 to 11 years Gender; all white British boys Location: London, UK Setting: children’s physical rehabilitation programme (Children’s Therapy Service at Medway Community Healthcare) Inclusion criteria: diagnosis DCD, flat feet defined by FPI > +4 Exclusion criteria: medical complications likely to affect gait – neuromuscular, orthopaedic conditions Baseline characteristics: all boys, stated that groups were similar for age, foot posture, and hypermobility (but no demographic data)
Interventions	‐ CFOs (N = 9) ‐ no CFOs (N = 5) Both groups completed a 7‐week rehabilitation programme
Outcomes	‐ Spatio‐temporal gait (Gait‐rite system) ‐ Six‐minute walk test No significant differences from baseline to 7 week completion.
Source of funding	Canonbury Healthcare funding
Notes	High attrition ‐ 14/21 (68%) finished the trial Small sample Specific cohort Preliminary trend inferred from NS results No true control group – quasi RCT
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	All participants entering the study were quasi‐randomised into one of the two groups..’. Method of randomisation unclear
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	‘…using a sealed envelope technique. Each envelope was opened after the child consented to taking part in the programme’
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants aware of foot orthoses being supplied at the start of end of rehabilitation program. Personnel supplied the orthoses at the start or end of the rehabilitation programme.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ self‐reported outcomes (e.g., pain, function)	Unclear risk	N/A
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) ‐ objective outcomes	High risk	The investigator was blind to the treatment group during the initial data collection. It was not clear if investigators were blind at the time of outcome assessment at follow‐up. The gait parameters reported are influenced by the participants who were not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Reasons not provided for attrition.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No reference to study protocol. Insufficient information to permit judgement of low risk or high risk
Other bias	Low risk	Source of funding declared and independence of funder from research design, conduct and reporting assured.