A case-series study to explore the efficacy of foot orthoses in treating first metatarsophalangeal joint pain

Background: First metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint pain is a common foot complaint which is often considered to be a consequence of altered mechanics. Foot orthoses are often prescribed to reduce 1 stMTP joint pain with the aim of altering dorsiflexion at propulsion. This study explores changes in 1 stMTP joint pain and kinematics following the use of foot orthoses.Methods: The effect of modified, pre-fabricated foot orthoses (X-line ®) were evaluated in thirty-two patients with 1 stMTP joint pain of mechanical origin. The primary outcome was pain measured at baseline and 24 weeks using the pain subscale of the foot function index (FFI). In a small sub-group of patients (n = 9), the relationship between pain and kinematic variables was explored with and without their orthoses, using an electromagnetic motion tracking (EMT) system.Results: A significant reduction in pain was observed between baseline (median = 48 mm) and the 24 week endpoint (median = 14.50 mm, z = -4.88, p < 0.001). In the sub-group analysis, we found no relationship between pain reduction and 1 stMTP joint motion, and no significant differences were found between the 1 stMTP joint maximum dorsiflexion or ankle/subtalar complex maximum eversion, with and without the orthoses.Conclusions: This observational study demonstrated a significant decrease in 1 stMTP joint pain associated with the use of foot orthoses. Change in pain was not shown to be associated with 1 stMTP joint dorsiflexion nor with altered ankle/subtalar complex eversion. Further research into the effect of foot orthoses on foot function is indicated. © 2010 Welsh et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Fit between humanitarian professionals and project requirements: hybrid group decision procedure to reduce uncertainty in decision-making

Choosing the right professional that has to meet indeterminate requirements is a critical aspect in humanitarian development and implementation projects. This paper proposes a hybrid evaluation methodology for some non-governmental organizations enabling them to select the most competent expert who can properly and adequately develop and implement humanitarian projects. This methodology accommodates various stakeholders’ perspectives in satisfying the unique requirements of humanitarian projects that are capable of handling a range of uncertain issues from both stakeholders and project requirements. The criteria weights are calculated using a two-step multi-criteria decision-making method: (1) Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process for the evaluation of the decision maker weights coupled with (2) Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to rank the alternatives which provide the ability to take into account both quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Sensitivity analysis have been developed and discussed by means of a real case of expert selection problem for a non-profit organisation. The results show that the approach allows a decrease in the uncertainty associated with decision-making, which proves that the approach provides robust solutions in terms of sensitivity analysis

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.

BACKGROUND: Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. METHODS: Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible. CONCLUSIONS: At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness