Skip to main content

Table 2 GRADE evidence profile

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

Certainty assessment № of patients Effect Certainty Importance
№ of studies Study design Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations 3D scanning traditional methods Relative
(95% CI)
Absolute
(95% CI)
  
Forefoot width
 [23,24,25, 27] observational studies not serious seriousa,b not serious not serious none 203 203 not estimable
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Rearfoot width
 [23,24,25, 27] observational studies not serious seriousa, c not serious seriousb none 203 203 not estimable
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Arch height (medial)
 [23, 24, 27] observational studies not serious serious a, c not serious seriousb none 73 73 not estimable
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
Time spent to cast or scan for foot and ankle (min)
 [26] randomised trials not serious not serious not serious seriousb none 64 70 MD 1.33 min higher
(0.4 lower to 3.1 higher)

MODERATE
CRITICAL
Time spent to cast or scan for foot (min)
 [28] observational studies very seriousd,e not serious not serious very seriousf none 1 1 not estimable
VERY LOW
IMPORTANT
  1. CI Confidence interval, MD Mean difference
  2. Explanations
  3. aLarge variation in effect. Some suggest 3D scanning, while some for plaster casting
  4. bWide 95% CI value which includes favours of both 3D scanning and plaster casting
  5. cPHigh I-squared value
  6. dNo description of randomization and lack of blinding
  7. ePA very small sample size
  8. fVery few events and no reports of CIs