Skip to main content

Table 1 Participant characteristics and outcomes of included studies

From: Comparison of 3D scanning versus traditional methods of capturing foot and ankle morphology for the fabrication of orthoses: a systematic review

Reference Participant characteristics Orthotic device Comparison methods and weightbearing status 3D scanner name and technology 3D scan position and weightbearing status Outcomes Main result and authors conclusions OCEBM level
Roberts, et al. 2016 [26] N = 136 aged < 21 yrs., prescribed rigid and/or hinged AFOs (10.7 SD 4.9 yrs. for males, 9.8 SD 4.1 yrs. for females) AFO Plaster cast, casting position and weightbearing status not described 3D FastSCAN
(Laser scanner)
Position and weightbearing status not described 1) Secondary outcome measures time (min) spent with subjects to cast and scan limbs 1) Orthotists experienced in 3D scanning had a significant time reduction compared to casting 2
Carroll, et al. 2011 [24] N = 21 aged > 20 yrs., healthy participants (35.4 SD 13.6 yrs) FO Plaster cast, NWB (sitting) Name not provided
(3D non-contact digitiser)
NWB (sitting) 1) ICC for intra and inter-rater reliability
2) Measurement error assessed by smallest real difference
1) 3D scanning is reliable with reduced measurement variability
2) Smallest real differences consistent between the raters and casting technique
Laughton, et al. 2002 [23] N = 15 aged 20–34 yrs., free of lower-extremity injuries (23.8 SD 3.6 yrs) FO 1) Plaster cast, NWB (lying prone)
2) Foam impression, PWB (sitting)
Sharp Shape
(Laser scanner)
1) PWB, (sitting)
2) NWB, (lying prone)
1) Reliability as assessed by within-method ICCs
2) ICCs between clinical measures and the four methods
1) Methods differ in reliability
2) Accuracy of foot measures are influenced by the method used
Telfer, et al. 2012 [27] N = 22 aged > 18 yrs., with non-cavus foot type (42.8 SD 11.4 yrs) FO 1) Plaster cast, NWB (lying prone)
2) Foam box, PWB (sitting)
3) Foam box, FWB (walking into the box)
(Laser scanner)
1) 50% WB (relaxed standing position)
2) 50% WB (Corrected standing)
3) PWB (sitting)
1) Intra- and inter-rater reliability (ICC (2,1)) 1) Apart from medial arch height, all methods shows good-excellent intra- and inter-rater reliability 3
Lee, et al. 2014 [25] N = 130 age 18–30 yrs., Healthy participants (21.25 SD 2.15 yrs. for males, 21.98 SD 2.94 yrs. for females) Not described 1) Digital calliper, 50% WB (standing)
2) Ink footprint, 50% WB (standing)
3) Digital footprint, 50%WB (position)
(Laser scanner)
50% WB (position) 1) The mean absolute difference values
2) ICCs for precision evaluation
1) 3D scanning had lowest mean absolute difference
2) Apart from ink footprint, all measures had ICCs from good to excellent
Payne, 2007 [28] ? - No participant characteristic or condition were given FO Plaster cast, casting position and weightbearing status not described Name not provided
(Technology type not reported)
Position and weightbearing status not described 1) Time to 3D scan and plaster cast of the foot by experienced podiatrist and student 1) Plaster casting slower than 3D scanning, especially for experienced user 5
  1. NWB non-weightbearing, PWB partial-weightbearing, FWB Full-weightbearing, 50%WB 50% weightbearing,