Table 4 Intervention effects on foot function during gait and running and dynamic balance

Taddei et al. [39]

Randomized controlled trial

High

Foot and ankle biomechanics

MLA ROM (°)

4.2 ± 2.4

3.6 ± 2.3

−0.6

0.26

4.6 ± 2.2

4.6 ± 1.8

−0.6

0.26

MRI assessed PIFM volume was significantly increased in IG as opposed to CG, whereas CSA and toe plantar flexion strength remained unchanged

Ground reaction forces

GRF vertical impulse in second half of stance (N·s)

65.9 ± 7.9

67.9 ± 6.5

2.0

0.28^NR

74.3 ± 7.0

73.5 ± 6.5

2.8

0.37^†

Okamura et al. [40]

Randomized controlled trial

High

Foot and ankle biomechanics

Navicular drop (mm)

6.2 ± 1.7

6.2 ± 1.5

0.0

0.00

5.9 ± 2.6

5.4 ± 2.5

0.5

− 0.23

US assessed PIFM thickness in IG and CG remained unchanged

Ground reaction forces

GRF vertical in second half of stance (% BW)

109.1 ± 4.5

108.3 ± 5.7

−0.8

−0.16

107.5 ± 6.2

108.4 ± 6.5

−1.7

−0.31

Spatiotemporal parameters

Stance phase duration (ms)

610.1 ± 36.8

600.4 ± 34.5

−9.7

0.27

623.6 ± 36.8

618.8 ± 47.1

−4.9

0.13

Matsumoto et al. [58]

Pre-post intervention study

Low

Foot and ankle biomechanics

MLA compression (°)

3.72 ± 6.8

3.65 ± 9.8

−0.07

0.01

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Toe grip strength in IG was significantly increased

Spatiotemporal parameters

Gait speed (m/s)

0.33 ± 0.02

0.33 ± 0.04

0.00

0.00

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Lynn et al. [53]

Randomized controlled trial

High

Dynamic balance

YBT mediolateral CoP excursion for non-dominant stance leg (mm)

52.4 ± 4.5

43.1 ± 5.1

−9.3

1.83*

47.8 ± 7.8

48.1 ± 5.5

−9.6

1.43^†

n/a

Lee and Choi [54]

Randomized controlled trial

Moderate

Dynamic balance

YBT composite reach distance (% leg length)

66.8 ± 9.6

70.9 ± 8.7

6.1^b

0.66*

65.4 ± 8.7

66.7 ± 9.1

3.8^b

0.41^†

n/a

Mulligan et al. [56]

Pre-post intervention study

Moderate

Dynamic balance

SEBT reach distance in medial direction (cm)

57.8 ± 7.4

61.6 ± 6.6

3.8

0.54*

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Tudpor et al. [55]

Non-randomized controlled trial

Low

Dynamic balance

SEBT reach distance in the lateral direction (% leg length)

54.8 ± 5.4^a

53.6 ± 9.6^a

−1.2

−0.15

59.0 ± 9.5^a

55.6 ± 6.9^a

2.2

0.27

n/a

Lee et al. [57]

Pre-post intervention study

Low

Dynamic balance

Medio-lateral center of gravity displacement index score as a response to a moving platform

3.4 ± 1.0

1.5 ± 0.8

−1.9

1.98^NR

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Ma et al. [61]

Pre-post intervention study

Low

Dynamic balance

YBT composite reach distance (% leg length)

97.0^d ± 7.5^a,d

96.0^d ± 7.5^a,d

−1.0

−0.13

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Kim et al. [59]

Pre-post intervention study

Low

Dynamic balance

YBT composite reach distance (% leg length)

74.3 ± 8.3

82.4 ± 7.4

8.1

0.97*

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Pisal et al. [60]

Pre-post intervention study

Low

Dynamic balance

YBT reach distance of right leg in posterolateral direction

61.1 ± 5.2

65.1 ± 5.1

4.0

0.78*

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a