Table 2

Patient characteristics associated with a successful outcome from a specific treatment

AuthorInterventionComparatorOutcome measureSample (n)Success (n)Predictors to a successful outcomeSignificance level (p)Positive likelihood ratio (95% CI)OR (95% CI)
Barton 201133Foot orthosesNil5-pt GROC6014Footwear motion control properties (weighted mean) >5.0
Usual pain<22.0/100 mm (VAS)
Ankle dorsiflexion (knee flexed) <41.3°
Reduced pain during single leg squat
0.051.9 (1.1 to 3.1)
2.5 (1.3 to 4.8)
1.5 (0.71 to 3.3)
3.0 (1.8 to 4.9)
Barton 201146Foot orthosesNil5-pt GROC267Greater rearfoot eversion relative to the laboratory floor0.05
Crowell and Wofford 201234Lumbo-pelvic manipulationNil11-pt NPRS
15-pt GROC
4425Hip IR side to side difference >14°
Ankle dorsiflexion (knee flexed) >16°
Navicular drop >3 mm
No self-reported stiffness sitting >20 min
Squatting (most painful activity)
0.050.76 (0.05 to 11.39)
0.93 (0.78 to 1.11)
1.52 (0.54 to 4.31)
0.74 (0.46 to 1.19)
0.82 (0.49 to 1.37)
Huang 201549Femoral nerve mobilisationNil10cm VAS
15-pt GROC
5128Significant immediate efficacy
Bilateral difference in hip extension angle of femoral slump test (>3°)
0.05NA
5.11 (1.28 to 20.30)
Iverson 200848Lumbo-pelvic manipulationNil11-pt NPRS 15-pt GROC4922Hip IR side to side difference >14°
Ankle dorsiflexion (knee flexed) >16°
Navicular drop >3 mm
No self-reported stiffness sitting >20 min
Squatting (most painful activity)
0.054.9 (1.2 to 20.8)
2.0 (1.0 to 3.9)
1.91 (1.0 to 3.6)
2.0 (1.1 to 3.4)
2.3 (1.1 to 4.7)
Lan 201031Patella tapingNil100 mm VAS10066Smaller lateral patellofemoral angle
Larger Q angle
Lower BMI
0.050.81 (0.70 to 0.95)
1.14 (1.03 to 1.26)
0.85 (0.75 to 0.98)
Lankhorst 201550Exercise therapy (ET)Usual care (UC)Kujala scale 11-pt NPRS131At 3 month
26 (ET)
21 (UC)
At 12 month
36 (ET)
30 (UC)
Nil significant *0.01
Mills 201232Foot orthosesWait-and-see6-pt GROC409 (FO)
1 (W-S)
Foot orthoses: midfoot width difference >11.25 mm†0.053.9 (1.07 to 14.1)
Peng 201528Leg press and stretchingNil10 cm VAS4324Difference in patella tilt angle between maximal quadriceps contraction and quadriceps relaxed (measured on axial CT)0.050.84
Rathleff 2015b47Foot orthosesNilPFP severity scale2312Immediate decrease in the medial-to-lateral peak force after fitting the orthoses during drop jump task0.05
Sutlive 200445Foot orthoses and activity modificationNil15-pt GROC5027Forefoot alignment ≥2° valgus
Great toe extension <78°
Navicular drop test ≤3 mm
Uncertain4.0 (0.7 to 21.9)
4.0 (0.7 to 21.9)
2.3 (1.3 to 4.3)
Vicenzino 201030Foot orthoses5-pt Likert GROC4217Age >25 years
Midfoot width difference >10.96 mm
Height <165 cm
Worst pain <53.25/100 mm (VAS)
0.051.9 (1.1 to 3.1)
3.0 (0.91 to 9.6)
4.9 (1.2 to 20.9)
1.5 (0.74 to 2.9)
-
  • *Analysis of interaction used was a liner regression modelling.

  • †Analysis of interaction used was a classification and regression tree approach.

  • GROC, global rating of change; NPRS, Numerical Pain Rating Scale; PPT, pressure pain threshold; VAS, visual analogue scale; VMO, vastus medialis obliquus.