↓ Skip to main content

The effect of foot orthoses with forefoot cushioning or metatarsal pad on forefoot peak plantar pressure in running

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
254 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effect of foot orthoses with forefoot cushioning or metatarsal pad on forefoot peak plantar pressure in running
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13047-016-0176-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaela Hähni, Anja Hirschmüller, Heiner Baur

Abstract

Foot orthoses are frequently used in sports for the treatment of overuse complaints with sufficient evidence available for certain foot-related overuse pathologies like plantar fasciitis, rheumatoid arthritis and foot pain (e.g., metatarsalgia). One important aim is to reduce plantar pressure under prominent areas like metatarsal heads. For the forefoot region, mainly two common strategies exist: metatarsal pad (MP) and forefoot cushioning (FC). The aim of this study was to evaluate which of these orthosis concepts is superior in reducing plantar pressure in the forefoot during running. Twenty-three (13 female, 10 male) asymptomatic runners participated in this cross-sectional experimental trial. Participants ran in a randomised order under the two experimental (MP, FC) conditions and a control (C) condition on a treadmill (2.78 ms(-1)) for 2 min, respectively. Plantar pressure was measured with the in-shoe plantar pressure measurement device pedar-x®-System and mean peak pressure averaged from ten steps in the forefoot (primary outcome) and total foot was analysed. Insole comfort was measured with the Insole Comfort Index (ICI, sum score 0-100) after each running trial. The primary outcome was tested using the Friedman test (α = 0.05). Secondary outcomes were analysed descriptively (mean ± SD, lower & upper 95%-CI, median and interquartile-range (IQR)). Peak pressure [kPa] in the forefoot was significantly lower wearing FC (281 ± 80, 95%-CI: 246-315) compared to both C (313 ± 69, 95%-CI: 283-343; p = .003) and MP (315 ± 80, 95%-CI: 280-350; p = .001). No significant difference was found between C and MP (p = .858). Peak pressures under the total foot were: C: 364 ± 82, 95%-CI: 328-399; MP: 357 ± 80, 95%-CI: 326-387; FC: 333 ± 81 95%-CI: 298-368. Median ICI sum scores were: C 50, MP 49, FC 64. In contrast to the metatarsal pad orthosis, the forefoot cushioning orthosis achieved a significant reduction of peak pressure in the forefoot of recreational runners. Consequently, the use of a prefabricated forefoot cushioning orthosis should be favoured over a prefabricated orthosis with an incorporated metatarsal pad in recreational runners with normal height arches.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 254 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 71 28%
Student > Master 31 12%
Researcher 16 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 4%
Other 40 16%
Unknown 70 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 71 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 19%
Sports and Recreations 17 7%
Engineering 7 3%
Arts and Humanities 4 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 87 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,093,216
of 14,150,306 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#192
of 555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,815
of 373,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#15
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,150,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.