Table 3 Mean differences and statistical significance for spatio-temporal variables for shod and barefoot walking.
From: Effect of children's shoes on gait: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Variable | Shoe Condition | Authors | n | Weighting | Mean difference [95%CI] | Statistical significance: z Score (P) | Heterogeneity: I 2% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Velocity (m/s) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 898 | 94.0% | 0.07 [0.06, 0.09] | - | 98% |
Unknown | Moreno-Hernandez et al.[10] | 61 | 2.2% | 0.05 [-0.01, 0.12] | - | - | |
Athletic | Oeffinger et al. [9] | 14 | 0.8% | 0.04 [-0.08, 0.16] | - | - | |
Oxford | Wegener et al.[23] | 20 | 0.9% | 0.03 [-0.08, 0.14] | - | - | |
Walking | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 1.4% | -0.01 [-0.10, 0.08] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 1011 | 100.0% | 0.07 [0.06, 0.08] | 12.97 (P < 0.00001) | 97% | |
Walking (greater flexibility) | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 100.0% | 0.02 [-0.07, 0.11] | 0.41 (P = 0.68) | N/A | |
Stride length (m) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 781 | 97.60% | 0.11 [0.11, 0.12] | - | 97% |
Unknown | Moreno-Hernandez et al.[10] | 61 | 1.10% | 0.07 [0.02, 0.12] | - | - | |
Athletic | Oeffinger et al. [9] | 14 | 0.30% | 0.12 [0.02, 0.21] | - | - | |
Oxford | Wegener et al. [23] | 20 | 0.20% | 0.11 [0.00, 0.22] | - | - | |
Walking | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 0.70% | 0.07 [0.01, 0.13] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 894 | 100.0% | 0.11 [0.10, 0.12] | 40.49 (P < 0.00001) | 93% | |
Walking (greater flexibility) | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 100.0% | 0.06 [-0.01, 0.13] | 1.71 (P = 0.09) | N/A | |
Step length (%) | Walking | Kristen et al. [15] | 30 | 6.2% | 0.20 [-2.26, 2.66] | - | - |
Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 781 | 87.5% | 9.69 [8.77, 10.61] | - | 100% | |
Unknown | Moreno-Hernandez et al.[10] | 61 | 6.3% | 6.57 [4.14, 8.99] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 872 | 100.0% | 8.90 [8.04, 9.77] | 20.16 (P < 0.00001) | 100% | |
Length (m) | Oxford | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 31 | 100.0% | 0.03 [-0.01, 0.07] | 1.52 (P = 0.13) | N/A |
Athletic | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 30 | 100.0% | 0.04 [0.00, 0.07] | 2.25 (P = 0.02) | N/A | |
Stride time (s) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 790 | 94.0% | 0.03 [0.02, 0.04] | - | 99% |
Oxford | Wegener et al. [23] | 20 | 2.6% | 0.08 [0.03, 0.13] | - | - | |
Walking | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 3.4% | 0.07 [0.03, 0.11] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 828 | 100.0% | 0.03 [0.02, 0.04] | 7.61 (P < 0.00001) | 99% | |
Walking (greater flexibility) | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 100.0% | 0.03 [-0.01, 0.07] | 1.50 (P = 0.13) | N/A | |
Step time (s) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 728 | 100.0% | 0.01 [0.01, 0.02] | 5.25 (P < 0.00001) | 99% |
Time | Oxford | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 31 | 100.0% | -0.40 [-1.98, 1.18] | 0.50 (P = 0.62) | N/A |
Athletic | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 30 | 100.0% | -0.20 [-1.98, 1.58] | 0.22 (P = 0.83) | N/A | |
Cadence (steps/min) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 471 | 70.5% | -5.68 [-9.05, -2.31] | - | 100% |
Unknown | Moreno-Hernandez et al.[10] | 61 | 11.0% | -3.51 [-8.51, 1.49] | - | - | |
Athletic | Oeffinger et al. [9] | 14 | 4.2% | -8.30 [-19.76, 3.16] | - | - | |
Oxford | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 31 | 4.1% | -2.10 [-13.80, 9.60] | - | - | |
Walking | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 10.3% | -8.70 [-14.11, -3.29] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 564 | 100.0% | -5.71 [-8.39, -3.02] | 4.16 (P < 0.0001) | 99% | |
Oxford | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 31 | 100.0% | -0.20 [-9.99, 9.59 | 0.04 (P = 0.97) | N/A | |
Walking (greater flexibility) | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 100.0% | -4.60 [-9.99, 0.79] | 1.67 (P = 0.09) | N/A | |
Support base (m) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 753 | 99.1% | 0.01 [0.00, 0.01] | - | 89% |
Oxford | Wegener et al. [23] | 20 | 0.5% | 0.01 [-0.01, 0.03] | - | - | |
Oxford | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 31 | 0.4% | 0.01 [-0.00, 0.03] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 804 | 100.0% | 0.01 [0.00, 0.01] | 9.23 (P < 0.00001) | 96% | |
Athletic | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 30 | 100.0% | 0.00 [-0.01, 0.02] | 0.49 (P = 0.62) | N/A | |
Toe-off (%) of gait cycle | Walking | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 100.0% | 2.30 [1.61, 2.99] | 6.56 (P < 0.00001) | N/A |
Walking (greater flexibility) | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 100.0% | 2.20 [1.51, 2.89] | 6.28 (P < 0.00001) | N/A | |
Double support (%) | Athletic | Lythgo et al.* | 898 | 100.0% | 1.53 [1.30, 1.77] | - | 99% |
Oxford | Wegener et al. [23] | 20 | 0.0% | 2.49 [-14.15, 19.13] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 918 | 100.0% | 1.54 [1.27, 1.80] | 11.40 (P < 0.00001) | 99% | |
Single support (%) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 898 | 100.0% | -0.79 [-0.92, -0.65] | 11.26 (P < 0.00001) | 99% |
Stance time (%) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 898 | 98.50% | 0.81 [0.70, 0.92] | - | - |
Unknown | Moreno-Hernandez et al.[10] | 61 | 1.5% | 0.74 [-0.12, 1.60] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 959 | 100.0% | 0.81 [0.70, 0.92] | 14.24 (P < 0.00001) | 98% | |
Swing time (%) | Shoe | Moreno-Hernandez et al.[10] | 61 | 100.0% | -0.74 [-1.60, 0.12] | 1.68 (P = 0.09) | N/A |
Contact time (ms) | Walking | Kristen et al. [15] | 30 | 100% | 49.00 [-9.88, 107.88] | 1.63 (P = 0.10) | N/A |
Angle of gait (°) | Athletic | Lythgo et al. [7]* | 898 | 99.9% | -0.03 [-0.34, 0.28] | - | 98% |
Walking | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 0.1% | -3.10 [-16.02, 9.82] | - | - | |
Combined | Pooled effect | 916 | 100.0% | -0.03 [-0.35, 0.29] | 0.19 (P = 0.85) | 98% | |
Walking (greater flexibility) | Wolf et al. [8] | 18 | 100.0% | -2.50 [-5.58, 0.58] | 1.59 (P = 0.11) | N/A | |
Progression angle (°) | Oxford | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 31 | 100.0% | -2.50 [-7.32, 2.32] | 1.02 (P = 0.31) | N/A |
Athletic | Wilkinson et al. [20] | 30 | 100.0% | -0.40 [-5.19, 4.39] | 0.16 (P = 0.87) | N/A |