Table 3 Outcome measures Skeletal Geometry

  Bean shaped ratio

Chen et al. (2015) [16]

CTEV

Group 1 CTF and DB

N/A

0.29 (0.27-0.30)^a

One-way MANOVA: p=0.002

Group 2 DB and Own footwear

N/A

0.31 (0.29-0.33) ^a

Post hoc:

Group 3 vs. 1 p<0.01

Group 3 FAS and CTF

N/A

0.27 (0.25-0.28) ^a

Group 3 vs. 2 p<0.01 |

  Bimalleolar angle (°)

Chen et al. (2015) [16]

CTEV

Group 1 CTF and DB

N/A

75.59 (73.98-77.21) ^a

One-way MANOVA: p=0.032

Group 2 DB and Own footwear

N/A

72.98 (69.03-6.92) ^a

Post hoc:

Group 2 vs. 3 p<0.01 |

Group 3 FAS and CTF

N/A

77.55 (75.57-79.53) ^a

  Talo calcaneal angle (°)

Kanatli et al. (2016) [12]

Mobile pes planus

Group 1 CTF

34^d (22-53) ^b

23^d (12-37) ^b

Wilcoxon signed rank:

Group1 p=0.002; Group 2 p=0.003

Group 2 Own footwear

33^d (20-45) ^b

30^d (13-37) ^b

Mann Whitney U:

Group 1 vs.2 p=0.19

Wenger et al. (1989) [37]

Mobile pes planus

Group 1 CTF

36.2 (1.2) ^c

29.4 (0.74) ^c

One Way ANOVA: p>0.5

Group 2 SLF

36.3 (0.99) ^c

31.5 (1.2) ^c

Group 3 CTF with Helfet heel cup

37.1 (0.84) ^c

30 (0.77) ^c

Group 4 SLF with UCBL

36.8 (0.97) ^c

30.1 (0.82) ^c

  Calcaneal pitch (°)

Kanatli et al. (2016) [12]

Mobile pes planus

Group 1 CTF

12^d (2-20) ^b

15^d (4-20) ^b

Wilcoxon signed rank:

Group 1 p=0.002;

Group 2 p=0.001

Group 2 Own footwear

10^d (1-16) ^b

14^d (4-22) ^b

Mann Whitney U:

Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.18

  Talar 1st metatarsal angle (°)

Kanatli et al. (2016) [12]

Mobile pes planus

Group 1 CTF

16^d (7-29) ^b

10^d (0-26) ^b

Wilcoxon signed rank:

Group 1 p=0.001;

Group 2 p=0.001

Group 2 Own footwear

18.4^d (6-35) ^b

9.3^d (0-34) ^b

Mann Whitney U:

Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.72

Wenger et al. (1989) [37]

Mobile pes planus

Group 1 CTF

19.1 (0.75) ^c

11.7 (0.84) ^c

One-way ANOVA: p>0.5

Group 2 SLF

16.7 (0.87) ^c

11.8 (0.91) ^c

Group 3 CTF with Helfet heel cup

16.8 (0.76) ^c

11.5 (0.67) ^c

Group 4 SLF with UCBL

19.7 (0.83) ^c

11.3 (0.98) ^c

  Talo calcaneal angle (°)

Kanatli et al. (2016) [12]

Mobile pes planus

Group 1 CTF

46^d (27-56) ^b

44^d (32-57) ^b

Wilcoxon signed rank:

Group1 p=0.736;

Group 2 p=0.113

Group 2 Own footwear

46^d (34-55) ^b

43^d (32-51) ^b

Mann Whitney U:

Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.24

  Talar horizontal angle (°)

Kanatli et al. (2016) [12]

Mobile pes planus

Group 1 CTF

34^d (16-49) ^b

29^d (19-42) ^b

Wilcoxon signed rank:

Group 1 p=0.003;

Group 2 p=0.001

Group 2 Own footwear

35^d (21-52) ^b

27^d (21-44) ^b

Mann Whitney U:

Group 1 vs. 2 p=0.09

Wenger et al. (1989) [37]

Mobile pes planus

Group 1 CTF

40.5 (0.70) ^c

34 (0.66) ^c

One Way ANOVA: p>0.4

Group 2 SLF

39.8 (0.71) ^c

34.7 (0.73) ^c

Group 3 CTF with Helfet heel cup

39.5 (0.6) ^c

34.7 (0.61) ^c

Group 4 SLF with UCBL

41.8 (0.78) ^c

34.2 (0.84) ^c

  Talocalcaneal angle (°)

Basta et al. (1977) [39]

Symptomatic mobile pes planus

Group 1 Change from BF wearing FSTF

-4.2

No Statistical test for significance performed

Group 1 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP

-1

Group2 Change from BF with FSTF

-3.8

Group 2 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF+CNP

-1.5

Group 3 -6

No Data Reported

No Data Reported

Group 7 Change from BF wearing FSTF

-4.1

Group 7 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP

-1.4

  Calcaneal pitch (°)

Basta et al. (1977) [39]

Symptomatic mobile pes planus

Group 1 Change from BF wearing FSTF

1.8

No Statistical test for significance performed

Group 1 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP

2.1

Group2 Change from BF with FSTF

1.8

Group 2 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF+CNP

2

Group 3 -6

No Data Reported

No Data Reported

Group 7 Change from BF wearing FSTF

2.1

Group 7 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP

1.55

  Longitudinal arch angle (°)

Group 1 Change from BF wearing FSTF

-2.75

No Statistical test for significance performed

Group 1 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP

-0.9

Group2 Change from BF with FSTF

-2.5

Group 2 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP

-0.9

Group 3 -6

No Data Reported

No Data Reported

Group 7 Change from BF wearing FSTF

-2.6

Group 7 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF+CNP

-1.2

  Talo calcaneal angle (°)

Group 1 Change from BF wearing FSTF

0.9

No Statistical test for significance performed

Group 1 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP

-1.35

Group2 Change from BF with FSTF

0.7

Group 2 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF + CNP

-1.25

Group 3 -6

No Data Reported

No Data Reported

Group 7 Change from BF wearing FSTF

0.8

Group 7 Change from FSTF wearing FSTF+CNP

-1.3

  Anteroposterior shift of sacral 1 (mm)

Zabjek et al. (2001) [44]

Idiopathic scoliosis

BF vs. FLTF

12 (19)

7 (5)

Paired t test: p>0.05

  Anteroposterior shift thoracic 1 (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

32 (20)

7 (7)

p<0.05

  Anteroposterior shift shoulders/pelvis (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

20 (18)

6 (5)

p<0.05

  Diff in height left-right tibia (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

-3 (5)

11 (4)

p<0.05

  Diff in height left-right trochanter (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

-10 (10)

15 (6)

p<0.05

Kyphosis (%)

BF vs. FLTF

7 (3)

0.6 (0.6)

p>0.05

  Lateral shift sacral 1 (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

1 (10)

9 (6)

p<0.05

  Lateral shift shoulder/pelvis (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

12 (10)

4 (3)

p>0.05

  Lateral shift thoracic 1 (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

13 (15)

9 (7)

p>0.05

  Lordosis (%)

BF vs. FLTF

4 (2)

0.5 (0.5)

p>0.05

  Pelvic rotation (°)

BF vs. FLTF

0.4 (4)

2 (2)

p>0.05

  Pelvic tilt (°)

BF vs. FLTF

3 (1)

3 (1)

p<0.05

  Rotation shoulder/pelvis (°)

BF vs. FLTF

1 (4)

1 (1)

p>0.05

  Shoulder rotation (°)

BF vs. FLTF

1 (4)

2 (2)

p>0.05

  Shoulder tilt (°)

BF vs. FLTF

0.4 (2)

0.8 (0.6)

p<0.05

  Tilt shoulder/pelvis (°)

BF vs. FLTF

-2 (2)

3 (2)

p<0.05

  Vertical height of sacral 1 (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

897 (84)

5 (3)

p<0.05

  Vertical height of thoracic 1 (mm)

BF vs. FLTF

1279 (117)

6 (3)

p<0.05

  Version left iliac bone (°)

BF vs. FLTF

-11 (4)

1 (1)

p<0.05

  Version right iliac bone (°)

BF vs. FLTF

-10 (4)

2 (1)

p<0.05

  Diff in version right and left iliac (°)

BF vs. FLTF

-0.5 (2)

2 (1)

p<0.05