Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Meta-Anal. Feb 26, 2015; 3(1): 61-71
Published online Feb 26, 2015. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.61
Table 1 Detailed assessment items of modified Jadad scale
Item assessedResponseScore
Was the study described as randomized?Yes1
No0
Was the method of randomization appropriate?Yes1
No-1
Not described0
Was the study described as blinded?1Yes1
No0
Was the method of blinding appropriate?Yes1
No-1
Not described0
Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts?Yes1
No0
Was there a clear description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria?Yes1
No0
Was the method used to assess adverse effects described?Yes1
No0
Was the method of statistical analysis described?Yes1
No0
Table 2 General information of eligible randomized controlled trials
Ref.locationCasesSex ratioMean ageFollow-up timeMain outcome measures
(O/N)(M/F)(O/N) (yr)(O/N) (yr)
Parmar et al[6]England25/3148/848.3/48.82.1/1.8Pain level, site, pattern; walking problems; shoe wear; resuming pre-injury job; deformity; ankle and subtalar movement; foot function; complications
O’Farrell et al[27]Ireland12/1220/433/381.3/1.2Shoe wear; pain-free walking distance; resuming pre-injury job; restoration of BÖhler angle and Gissane angle; motion range of ankle, subtalar and calcaneocuboid
Chrintz et al[26]Denmark33/35NRNR1.5/1.5Radiography outcomes
Thordarson et al[7]United States15/1121/535/361.4/1.2Functional assessment scale; motion rage of subtalar and ankle; gait analysis; restoration of BÖhler angle; pain; daily activity; shoe wear; walking; exercise; work; complications
Buckley et al[8]Canada206/218381/4341/393.0/3.0Complications; SF-36 scale; VAS; shoe wear; numbness
Ibrahim et al[9]United Kingdom15/1121/561/5815.2/14.8AOFAS score; FFI score; calcaneal fracture score; restoration of BÖhler angle and calcaneal height; arthritic grading of the subtalar joint
Nouraei et al[16]Iran31/30NR46/523.0/3.0Motion range of ankle and subtalar; X-ray findings; width of heel; pain in walking; shoe wear; swelling of foot and ankle; reflex systematic dystrophy
Agren et al[15]Sweden42/4059/2349/4810 (8-12)1VAS; SF-36 scale; AOFAS score; OM scale; complications
Table 3 Methodological assessment of eligible randomized controlled trials using modified Jadad scale
Item assessedParmar 1993O’Farrell 1993Chrintz 1993Thordarson 1996Buckley 2002Ibrahim 2007Nouraei 2011Agren 2013
Was the study described as randomized?×
Was the method of randomization appropriate??????
Was the study described as blinded?×××××
Was the method of blinding appropriate?????????
Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts?×
Was there a clear description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria?××
Was the method used to assess adverse effects described?×××××××
Was the method of statistical analysis described?
Total score2245.56.5445.5
Table 4 Results of sensitivity analysis
OutcomesAll eligible RCTs included
Only high score RCTs included
nPatientsI2RR (95%CI)P valuesnPatientsI2RR (95%CI)P values
Resume pre-injury job310655%1.53 (1.13, 2.07)0.006126NA2.20 (0.97, 5.00)0.06
Residual pain314380%0.73 (0.40, 1.36)0.3328793%0.63 (0.19, 2.11)0.45
Shoe fitting problems666763%0.61 (0.37, 1.04)0.07458773%0.57 (0.27, 1.21)0.15
Limited walking distance28271%0.88 (0.57, 1.36)0.56126NA0.42 (0.16, 1.08)0.07
Complications45880%1.60 (1.17, 2.18)0.00335321%1.59 (1.14, 2.22)0.006