La Trobe
20739_McCormick,C_2013.pdf (551.88 kB)

The effect of customised and sham foot orthoses on plantar pressures

Download (551.88 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2021-05-27, 02:31 authored by CJ McCormick, Daniel BonannoDaniel Bonanno, Karl LandorfKarl Landorf
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(R)-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. Conclusion: 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.


Publication Date



Journal of Foot and Ankle Research





Article Number





BioMed Central



Rights Statement

The Author reserves all moral rights over the deposited text and must be credited if any re-use occurs. Documents deposited in OPAL are the Open Access versions of outputs published elsewhere. Changes resulting from the publishing process may therefore not be reflected in this document. The final published version may be obtained via the publisher’s DOI. Please note that additional copyright and access restrictions may apply to the published version.

Usage metrics

    Journal Articles


    No categories selected



    Ref. manager