Skip to main content

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