-
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Nov 2020With the rise of mobile medicine, the development of new technologies such as smart sensing, and the popularization of personalized health concepts, the field of smart... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With the rise of mobile medicine, the development of new technologies such as smart sensing, and the popularization of personalized health concepts, the field of smart wearable devices has developed rapidly in recent years. Among them, medical wearable devices have become one of the most promising fields. These intelligent devices not only assist people in pursuing a healthier lifestyle but also provide a constant stream of health care data for disease diagnosis and treatment by actively recording physiological parameters and tracking metabolic status. Therefore, wearable medical devices have the potential to become a mainstay of the future mobile medical market.
OBJECTIVE
Although previous reviews have discussed consumer trends in wearable electronics and the application of wearable technology in recreational and sporting activities, data on broad clinical usefulness are lacking. We aimed to review the current application of wearable devices in health care while highlighting shortcomings for further research. In addition to daily health and safety monitoring, the focus of our work was mainly on the use of wearable devices in clinical practice.
METHODS
We conducted a narrative review of the use of wearable devices in health care settings by searching papers in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library published since October 2015. Potentially relevant papers were then compared to determine their relevance and reviewed independently for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of 82 relevant papers drawn from 960 papers on the subject of wearable devices in health care settings were qualitatively analyzed, and the information was synthesized. Our review shows that the wearable medical devices developed so far have been designed for use on all parts of the human body, including the head, limbs, and torso. These devices can be classified into 4 application areas: (1) health and safety monitoring, (2) chronic disease management, (3) disease diagnosis and treatment, and (4) rehabilitation. However, the wearable medical device industry currently faces several important limitations that prevent further use of wearable technology in medical practice, such as difficulties in achieving user-friendly solutions, security and privacy concerns, the lack of industry standards, and various technical bottlenecks.
CONCLUSIONS
We predict that with the development of science and technology and the popularization of personalized health concepts, wearable devices will play a greater role in the field of health care and become better integrated into people's daily lives. However, more research is needed to explore further applications of wearable devices in the medical field. We hope that this review can provide a useful reference for the development of wearable medical devices.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Health Facilities; Humans; Technology; Wearable Electronic Devices
PubMed: 33164904
DOI: 10.2196/18907 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Sep 2020Consumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures.
BACKGROUND
Consumer-wearable activity trackers are small electronic devices that record fitness and health-related measures.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the validity and reliability of commercial wearables in measuring step count, heart rate, and energy expenditure.
METHODS
We identified devices to be included in the review. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus, and only articles published in the English language up to May 2019 were considered. Studies were excluded if they did not identify the device used and if they did not examine the validity or reliability of the device. Studies involving the general population and all special populations were included. We operationalized validity as criterion validity (as compared with other measures) and construct validity (degree to which the device is measuring what it claims). Reliability measures focused on intradevice and interdevice reliability.
RESULTS
We included 158 publications examining nine different commercial wearable device brands. Fitbit was by far the most studied brand. In laboratory-based settings, Fitbit, Apple Watch, and Samsung appeared to measure steps accurately. Heart rate measurement was more variable, with Apple Watch and Garmin being the most accurate and Fitbit tending toward underestimation. For energy expenditure, no brand was accurate. We also examined validity between devices within a specific brand.
CONCLUSIONS
Commercial wearable devices are accurate for measuring steps and heart rate in laboratory-based settings, but this varies by the manufacturer and device type. Devices are constantly being upgraded and redesigned to new models, suggesting the need for more current reviews and research.
Topics: Energy Metabolism; Fitness Trackers; Heart Rate; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Wearable Electronic Devices
PubMed: 32897239
DOI: 10.2196/18694 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jan 2022Numerous wrist-wearable devices to measure physical activity are currently available, but there is a need to unify the evidence on how they compare in terms of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Numerous wrist-wearable devices to measure physical activity are currently available, but there is a need to unify the evidence on how they compare in terms of acceptability and accuracy.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the accuracy and acceptability (willingness to use the device for the task it is designed to support) of wrist-wearable activity trackers.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SPORTDiscus for studies measuring physical activity in the general population using wrist-wearable activity trackers. We screened articles for inclusion and, for the included studies, reported data on the studies' setting and population, outcome measured, and risk of bias.
RESULTS
A total of 65 articles were included in our review. Accuracy was assessed for 14 different outcomes, which can be classified in the following categories: count of specific activities (including step counts), time spent being active, intensity of physical activity (including energy expenditure), heart rate, distance, and speed. Substantial clinical heterogeneity did not allow us to perform a meta-analysis of the results. The outcomes assessed most frequently were step counts, heart rate, and energy expenditure. For step counts, the Fitbit Charge (or the Fitbit Charge HR) had a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) <25% across 20 studies. For heart rate, the Apple Watch had a MAPE <10% in 2 studies. For energy expenditure, the MAPE was >30% for all the brands, showing poor accuracy across devices. Acceptability was most frequently measured through data availability and wearing time. Data availability was ≥75% for the Fitbit Charge HR, Fitbit Flex 2, and Garmin Vivofit. The wearing time was 89% for both the GENEActiv and Nike FuelBand.
CONCLUSIONS
The Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Charge HR were consistently shown to have a good accuracy for step counts and the Apple Watch for measuring heart rate. None of the tested devices proved to be accurate in measuring energy expenditure. Efforts should be made to reduce the heterogeneity among studies.
Topics: Exercise; Fitness Trackers; Heart Rate; Humans; Wearable Electronic Devices; Wrist
PubMed: 35060915
DOI: 10.2196/30791 -
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2023Flapless and fully guided implant placement has the potential to maximize efficacy outcomes and at the same time to minimize surgical invasiveness. The aim of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Flapless and fully guided implant placement has the potential to maximize efficacy outcomes and at the same time to minimize surgical invasiveness. The aim of the current systematic review was to answer the following PICO question: "In adult human subjects undergoing dental implant placement (P), is minimally invasive flapless computer-aided fully guided (either dynamic or static computer-aided implant placement (sCAIP)) (I) superior to flapped conventional (free-handed implant placement (FHIP) or cast-based/drill partially guided implant placement (dPGIP)) surgery (C), in terms of efficacy, patient morbidity, long-term prognosis, and costs (O)?" Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) fulfilling specific inclusion criteria established to answer the PICO question were included. Two review authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened the titles and abstracts, performed full-text analysis, extracted the data from the published reports, and performed the risk of bias assessment. In cases of disagreement, a third review author took the final decision during ad hoc consensus meetings. The study results were summarized using random effects meta-analyses, which were based (wherever possible) on individual patient data (IPD). A total of 10 manuscripts reporting on five RCTs, involving a total of 124 participants and 449 implants, and comparing flapless sCAIP with flapped FHIP/cast-based partially guided implant placement (cPGIP), were included. There was no RCT analyzing flapless dynamic computer-aided implant placement (dCAIP) or flapped dPGIP. Intergroup meta-analyses indicated less depth deviation (difference in means (MD) = -0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.59 to 0.03; moderate certainty), angular deviation (MD = -3.88 degrees; 95% CI: -7.00 to -0.77; high certainty), coronal (MD = -0.6 mm; 95% CI: -1.21 to 0.01; low certainty) and apical (MD = -0.75 mm; 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.07; moderate certainty) three-dimensional bodily deviations, postoperative pain (MD = -17.09 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS); 95% CI: -33.38 to -0.80; low certainty), postoperative swelling (MD = -6.59 mm on the VAS; 95% CI: -19.03 to 5.85; very low certainty), intraoperative discomfort (MD = -9.36 mm on the VAS; 95% CI: -17.10 to -1.61) and surgery duration (MD = -24.28 minutes; 95% CI: -28.62 to -19.95) in flapless sCAIP than in flapped FHIP/cPGIP. Despite being more accurate than flapped FHIP/cPGIP, flapless sCAIP still resulted in deviations with respect to the planned position (intragroup meta-analytic means: 0.76 mm in depth, 2.57 degrees in angular, 1.43 mm in coronal, and 1.68 in apical three-dimensional bodily position). Moreover, flapless sCAIP presented a 12% group-specific intraoperative complication rate, resulting in an inability to place the implant with this protocol in 7% of cases. Evidence regarding more clinically relevant outcomes of efficacy (implant survival and success, prosthetically and biologically correct positioning), long-term prognosis, and costs, is currently scarce. When the objective is to guarantee minimal invasiveness at implant placement, clinicians could consider the use of flapless sCAIP. A proper case selection and consideration of a safety margin are, however, suggested.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 35906928
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12440 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Dec 2021Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is often treated with Mandibular Advancement Devices (MADs). It is unclear whether particular design features are superior to others in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is often treated with Mandibular Advancement Devices (MADs). It is unclear whether particular design features are superior to others in terms of OSA alleviation. In order to facilitate clinical decision-making, this systematic review summarizes the objective and subjective outcomes of different available MAD designs. Studies comparing different MAD designs in OSA treatment were searched. After screening 1887 titles and abstracts, 20 original RCTs and six cohort studies were included. 14 articles were systematically reviewed in a meta-analysis. The decrease in AHI was significantly different between some of the MAD designs. The clinical relevance of the observed differences was however limited. Monoblock appliances performed more favorable, compared to bilateral thrust (effect size:-0.37; CI:-1.81 to 0.07). Midline traction appliances performed more favorable, compared to other designs. Custom appliances performed more favorable, compared to thermoplastic appliances (effect size:0.86; CI:-0.62 to 2.35). Furthermore, there were no clinically relevant differences between MAD designs in reduction of ESS, compliance, preference, side effects, and cost effectiveness. With respect to the included trials, presently there is not one superior custom MAD design in OSA treatment regarding the effect on AHI reduction, ESS improvement, compliance, preference, side effects, cost effectiveness, and other disease-related outcomes. We confirm custom MAD designs perform superior to thermoplastic MAD designs.
Topics: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Humans; Mandibular Advancement; Occlusal Splints; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34662769
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101557 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
METHODS
In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34398473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Jan 2022Wearable devices hold great promise, particularly for data generation for cutting-edge health research, and their demand has risen substantially in recent years.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Wearable devices hold great promise, particularly for data generation for cutting-edge health research, and their demand has risen substantially in recent years. However, there is a shortage of aggregated insights into how wearables have been used in health research.
OBJECTIVE
In this review, we aim to broadly overview and categorize the current research conducted with affordable wearable devices for health research.
METHODS
We performed a scoping review to understand the use of affordable, consumer-grade wearables for health research from a population health perspective using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) framework. A total of 7499 articles were found in 4 medical databases (PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Studies were eligible if they used noninvasive wearables: worn on the wrist, arm, hip, and chest; measured vital signs; and analyzed the collected data quantitatively. We excluded studies that did not use wearables for outcome assessment and prototype studies, devices that cost >€500 (US $570), or obtrusive smart clothing.
RESULTS
We included 179 studies using 189 wearable devices covering 10,835,733 participants. Most studies were observational (128/179, 71.5%), conducted in 2020 (56/179, 31.3%) and in North America (94/179, 52.5%), and 93% (10,104,217/10,835,733) of the participants were part of global health studies. The most popular wearables were fitness trackers (86/189, 45.5%) and accelerometer wearables, which primarily measure movement (49/189, 25.9%). Typical measurements included steps (95/179, 53.1%), heart rate (HR; 55/179, 30.7%), and sleep duration (51/179, 28.5%). Other devices measured blood pressure (3/179, 1.7%), skin temperature (3/179, 1.7%), oximetry (3/179, 1.7%), or respiratory rate (2/179, 1.1%). The wearables were mostly worn on the wrist (138/189, 73%) and cost <€200 (US $228; 120/189, 63.5%). The aims and approaches of all 179 studies revealed six prominent uses for wearables, comprising correlations-wearable and other physiological data (40/179, 22.3%), method evaluations (with subgroups; 40/179, 22.3%), population-based research (31/179, 17.3%), experimental outcome assessment (30/179, 16.8%), prognostic forecasting (28/179, 15.6%), and explorative analysis of big data sets (10/179, 5.6%). The most frequent strengths of affordable wearables were validation, accuracy, and clinical certification (104/179, 58.1%).
CONCLUSIONS
Wearables showed an increasingly diverse field of application such as COVID-19 prediction, fertility tracking, heat-related illness, drug effects, and psychological interventions; they also included underrepresented populations, such as individuals with rare diseases. There is a lack of research on wearable devices in low-resource contexts. Fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, we see a shift toward more large-sized, web-based studies where wearables increased insights into the developing pandemic, including forecasting models and the effects of the pandemic. Some studies have indicated that big data extracted from wearables may potentially transform the understanding of population health dynamics and the ability to forecast health trends.
Topics: COVID-19; Fitness Trackers; Humans; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Wearable Electronic Devices
PubMed: 35076409
DOI: 10.2196/34384 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2021In recent years, clear aligners have diversified and evolved in their primary characteristics (material, gingival margin design, attachments, divots, auxiliaries),... (Review)
Review
In recent years, clear aligners have diversified and evolved in their primary characteristics (material, gingival margin design, attachments, divots, auxiliaries), increasing their indications and efficiency. We overviewed the brands of aligners used in Italy and reviewed the literature on the evolution of clear aligners based on their characteristics mentioned above by consulting the main scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. The data were collected on a purpose-made data collection form and analyzed descriptively. From the initial 580 records, 527 were excluded because they were not related to the subject of the review or because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. The remaining 31 studies were deemed comprehensive for the purpose of the review, although the "gingival margin design" feature and "auxiliaries" tool are not well represented in the more recent literature. Current knowledge on invisible aligners allows us to have a much clearer idea of the basic characteristics of aligner systems. There remains a need to deepen the use of systems other than Invisalign™ to give greater evidence to aligners that are very different based on the characteristics analyzed here and that are very widespread on the market.
Topics: Durable Medical Equipment; Italy; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Referral and Consultation
PubMed: 33799682
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18062870 -
Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand... 2023Mallet finger is a commonly encountered condition in daily practice. However, there is currently no consensus on whether surgical intervention or conservative treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Mallet finger is a commonly encountered condition in daily practice. However, there is currently no consensus on whether surgical intervention or conservative treatment with orthosis splint is superior. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compare the treatment outcomes between surgery and orthosis for bony and tendinous mallet finger. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library according to the PRISMA guidelines from inception to January 15, 2021. The primary outcome was distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint extension lag angle, and secondary outcomes were DIP joint flexion and range of motion (ROM) angle. A total of 297 studies were initially identified, of which 13 (ten retrospective non-randomized controlled studies (non-RCTs) and three RCTs) were included in the final analysis. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that there was no high level of evidence supporting the superiority of surgery over orthosis in the treatment of mallet finger. Based on the available evidence, surgical intervention and conservative treatment with splint may offer similar clinical outcomes in both bony and tendinous mallet finger.
Topics: Humans; Splints; Retrospective Studies; Orthotic Devices; Finger Injuries; Treatment Outcome; Tendon Injuries; Finger Joint; Hand Deformities, Acquired; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 36625383
DOI: 10.1080/2000656X.2022.2164291 -
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Jul 2020Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common foot injuries. Several mechanical treatment options, including shoe inserts, ankle-foot orthoses, tape, and shoes are used to...
CONTEXT
Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common foot injuries. Several mechanical treatment options, including shoe inserts, ankle-foot orthoses, tape, and shoes are used to relieve the symptoms of plantar fasciitis.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness of mechanical treatment in the management of plantar fasciitis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane up to March 8, 2018. Two independent reviewers screened eligible articles and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 43 articles were included in the study, evaluating 2837 patients. Comparisons were made between no treatment and treatment with insoles, tape, ankle-foot orthoses including night splints and shoes. Tape, ankle-foot orthoses, and shoes were also compared with insoles. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 5 days to 12 months. Cointerventions were present in 26 studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Mechanical treatment can be beneficial in relieving symptoms related to plantar fasciitis. Contoured full-length insoles are more effective in relieving symptoms related to plantar fasciitis than heel cups. Combining night splints or rocker shoes with insoles enhances improvement in pain relief and function compared with rocker shoes, night splints, or insoles alone. Taping is an effective short-term treatment. Future studies should aim to improve methodological quality using blinding, allocation concealment, avoid cointerventions, and use biomechanical measures of treatment effects.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bandages; Bias; Cohort Studies; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Fasciitis, Plantar; Female; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Orthotic Devices; Shoes; Splints; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31629333
DOI: 10.1123/jsr.2019-0036