title: The effect of customised and sham foot orthoses on plantar pressures.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The effectiveness of foot orthoses has been evaluated in many clinical trials with sham foot orthoses used as the control intervention in at least 10 clinical trials. However, the mechanical effects and credibility of sham orthoses has been rarely quantified. This study aimed to: (i) compare the effects on plantar pressures of three sham foot orthoses to a customised foot orthosis, and (ii) establish the perceived credibility and the expected benefit of each orthotic condition.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty adults aged between 18 and 51 participated in this study. At 0 and 4 weeks, plantar pressure data were collected for the heel, midfoot and forefoot using the pedar(®)-X in-shoe system for the following five randomly assigned conditions: (i) shoe alone, (ii) customised foot orthosis, (iii) contoured polyethylene sham foot orthosis, (iv) contoured EVA sham foot orthosis, and (v) flat EVA sham foot orthosis. At the initial data collection session, each participant completed a Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) to determine the credibility and expected benefit of each orthotic condition.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Compared to the shoe alone at week 0, the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis was the only condition to not significantly effect peak pressure at any region of the foot. In contrast, the contoured EVA sham orthosis, the flat EVA sham orthosis and the customised orthosis significantly reduced peak pressure at the heel. At the medial midfoot, all sham orthoses provided the same effect as the shoe alone, which corresponded to effects that were significantly different to the customised orthosis. There were no differences in peak pressure between conditions at the other mask regions, the lateral midfoot and forefoot. When the conditions were compared at week 4, the differences between the conditions were generally similar to the findings observed at week 0. With respect to credibility and expected benefit, all orthotic conditions were considered the same with the exception of the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis, which was perceived as being less credible and less likely to provide benefits.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The findings of this study indicate that all of the sham orthoses tested provided the same effect on plantar pressures at the midfoot and forefoot as a shoe alone. However, the contoured EVA sham orthosis and the flat EVA sham orthosis significantly reduced peak pressure under the heel, which was similar to the customised orthosis. In contrast, the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis had no significant effect on plantar pressure and was comparable to the shoe alone at all regions of the foot. Hence, lower plantar pressures were found under the heel with some sham orthoses, but not with others. Importantly, participants perceived the polyethylene sham orthosis - the sham that had no effect on plantar pressure - to be the least credible orthosis and the least likely to provide benefits. This may be critical for the design of future clinical trials as it may introduce confounding effects that produce inaccurate results. These findings provide some evidence for the mechanical effects, treatment credibility and expected benefit of sham foot orthoses, which should be considered when they are used as a control intervention in a clinical trial.
authors.affiliation: Department of Podiatry, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia.
authors.forename: Chris J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: McCormick
authors.affiliation: Department of Podiatry, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia ; Lower Extremity and Gait Studies Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia.
authors.forename: Daniel R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Bonanno
authors.affiliation: Department of Podiatry, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia ; Lower Extremity and Gait Studies Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia.
authors.forename: Karl B
authors.initials: KB
authors.lastname: Landorf
keywords: Kinetics; Orthoses; Orthotic devices; Sham treatment