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