Results: 400 participants completed the study; 219 potential participants were excluded because they were assessed as having a low risk from the biomechanical
plantar pressure assessment. After 7 weeks training, there were 21 injuries in the intervention (orthosis) group and 61 injuries in the control group resulting in an absolute risk reduction of 0.20 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.28) and a number needed to treat of 5 (95% CI 4 to 8). A similar number of minor adverse events of foot blisters were reported by both groups (intervention n = 12, control n = 16) Conclusion: The use of customised foot orthoses during military training for those assessed as being at-risk resulted HIF-1 activation in a 20% reduction in lower limb overuse injury rate. [Absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat and 95% CIs re-calculated by the CAP Co-ordinator.] A recent Cochrane systematic review found that foot orthoses are effective for the treatment of foot pain ( Hawke et al 2008). The question of whether orthoses are effective for the prevention of injuries has also received investigation, including two systematic reviews
Vemurafenib mw ( Collins et al 2007, Landorf & Keenan 2007). Both reviews found that orthoses prevent injuries in certain populations (mainly military recruits). Whether the orthoses used are prefabricated or customised does not appear to matter ( Collins et al 2007, Landorf & Keenan 2007). What does matter is that they PD184352 (CI-1040) are appropriately contoured to the foot and they are not just shock-absorbing insoles, which do not prevent injury ( Landorf & Keenan 2007). Although this is not the first randomised trial to identify a positive preventive role of orthoses – as Franklyn-Miller
and colleagues claim – it adds to the evidence base that appropriately contoured foot orthoses are beneficial for preventing injuries. It is generally well conducted; however it does have some limitations, some of which were acknowledged by the authors. This trial would have been strengthened with a control group that received some form of sham treatment. It also appears that the authors may have overestimated the treatment effect with their calculation of the absolute risk reduction, although the re-calculated absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat presented in the synopsis still suggests that the intervention was very beneficial. A final issue, and one that is arguably more important, is whether a cheaper prefabricated orthosis could provide similar benefit compared to the semi-customised orthosis used in this trial. The prescription technique, while novel, is not commonly used in clinical practice, raising an issue about generalisability of the findings and whether more mass-produced and, as a consequence, cheaper orthoses may be as effective or better. A similar trial found a simpler orthosis to be effective for preventing shin splints (Larsen and Keenan 2002).