↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for the prevention and treatment of pes cavus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for the prevention and treatment of pes cavus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006154.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua Burns, Karl B Landorf, Monique M Ryan, Jack Crosbie, Robert A Ouvrier

Abstract

People with pes cavus frequently suffer foot pain, which can lead to significant disability. Despite anecdotal reports, rigorous scientific investigation of this condition and how best to manage it is lacking. To assess the effects of interventions for the prevention and treatment of pes cavus. We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register (April 2007), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2007), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2007), CINAHL (January 1982 to April 2007), AMED (January 1985 to April 2007), all EBM Reviews (January 1991 to April 2007), SPORTdiscuss (January 1830 to April 2007) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted known experts in the field to identify additional published or unpublished data. We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions for the treatment of pes cavus. We also included trials aimed at preventing or correcting the cavus foot deformity. Two authors independently selected papers, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Only one trial (custom-made foot orthoses) fully met the inclusion criteria. Two additional cross-over trials (off-the-shelf foot orthoses and footwear) were also included. Both studies assessed secondary biomechanical outcomes less than three-months after randomisation. Data used in the three studies could not be pooled due to heterogeneity of diagnostic groups and outcome measures. The one trial that fully met the inclusion criteria investigated the treatment of cavus foot pain in 154 adults over a three month period. The trial showed a significant reduction in the level of foot pain, measured using the validated 100-point Foot Health Status Questionnaire, with custom-made foot orthoses versus sham orthoses (WMD 10.90; 95% CI 3.21 to 18.59). Furthermore, a significant improvement in foot function measured with the same questionnaire was reported with custom-made foot orthoses (WMD 11.00; 95% CI 3.35 to 18.65). There was also an increase in physical functioning of the Medical Outcomes Short Form - 36 (WMD 9.50; 95% CI 4.07 to 14.93). There was no difference in reported adverse events following the allocation of custom-made (9%) or sham foot orthoses (15%) (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48). In one randomised controlled trial, custom-made foot orthoses were significantly more beneficial than sham orthoses for treating chronic musculoskeletal foot pain associated with pes cavus in a variety of clinical populations. There is no evidence for any other type of intervention for the treatment or prevention of foot pain in people with a cavus foot type.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 203 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 19%
Student > Bachelor 24 12%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Other 9 4%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 58 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 14%
Psychology 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 67 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 November 2022.
All research outputs
#6,326,967
of 22,512,774 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,165
of 12,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,859
of 74,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,512,774 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 74,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 53% of its contemporaries.