Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 2 GRADE evidence profile

From: Feasibility of designing, manufacturing and delivering 3D printed ankle-foot orthoses: a systematic review

Quality assessment № of patients Effect Quality Importance
№ of studies Study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations AFOs manufactured using 3D printing techniques Traditionally manufactured AFOs Relative
(95% CI)
Absolute
(95% CI)
Walking ability (assessed by 3D gait analysis)
5 observational studies 1,2,3,4,5 serious a,b,c not serious serious 1,5,6,7 a,b serious d none 20 11
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Patient perceived comfort (assessed by interview)
2 observational studies 2,8 very serious e not serious serious a serious d none Interview after use of AFO during gait
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Patient satisfaction (assessed with the QUEST)
2 observational studies 4 very serious f not serious not serious serious d none 1 1
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Bending stiffness (assessed by bench testing using custom stiffness testing device)
3 observational studies 6,9,10 serious a,c,g not serious serious a serious d none 3 1
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Energy Dissipation (assessed by bending testing and analysing the resulting acceleration-time trajectory)
1 observational studies 6 not serious not serious serious a serious d none 1 1
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Destructive Testing (assessed by benching testing using a hydraulic axial load cell)
1 observational studies 4 not serious not serious serious a serious d none 1 1
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Dimensional accuracy between CAD model and printed AFO (assessed by the FaroArm, fit with a 3 mm spherical tip)
1 observational studies 8 serious h not serious serious a serious d none 2
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Durability (assessed by mechanical stress test of 300,000 cycles)
1 observational studies 4 serious a not serious serious a serious d none 2
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Durability (follow up: 6 weeks; assessed by observation)
1 observational studies 11 serious d,e not serious not serious serious d none 7 7
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Material displacement (assessed by finite element analysis)
1 observational studies 7 serious h,i not serious serious a serious d none 1
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
  1. CI Confidence interval
  2. 1Telfer, et al., 2012, 2Mavroidis, et al., 2011, 3Creylman, et al., 2013, 4Cha, et al., 2017, 5Choi et al. 2017., 6Faustini, et al., 2008, 7Aydin et al. 2018 8Schrank and Stanhope, 2011, 9Schrank, et al. 2013, 10Walbran, et al., 2016, 12Deckers, et al., 2018 Explanations: a Not all studies compared to traditionally manufactured AFOs, b Differences in study populations, c Differences in type of AFO assessed, d Participants / number of AFOs assessed low, e No quantitative assessment, f No blinding of AFOs, g Method used to assess outcome different across studies, h Influence of oblique build orientations and positions and different sized and shaped orthoses not tested, i Number of samples tested low