You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for plantar heel pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis
Free
  1. Opeyemi O Babatunde1,
  2. Amardeep Legha1,2,
  3. Chris Littlewood1,
  4. Linda S Chesterton1,
  5. Martin J Thomas1,3,
  6. Hylton B Menz1,4,
  7. Danielle van der Windt1,2,
  8. Edward Roddy1,3
  1. 1 Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
  2. 2 Centre for Prognosis Research, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
  3. 3 Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Partnership NHS Trust, Haywood Hospital, Burslem, Staffordshire, UK
  4. 4 School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Opeyemi O Babatunde, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK; o.babatunde{at}keele.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of current treatment options for plantar heel pain (PHP).

Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

Data sources Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database, Web of Science and WHO Clinical Trials Platform were searched from their inception until January 2018.

Study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with PHP investigating common treatments (ie, corticosteroid injection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, therapeutic exercise, orthoses and/or extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT)) compared with each other or a no treatment, placebo/sham control.

Data extraction and analysis Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Primary outcomes were pain and function. Comparative treatment effects were analysed by random effects NMA in the short term, medium term and long term. Relative ranking of treatments was assessed by surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities (0–100 scale).

Results Thirty-one RCTs (total n=2450 patients) were included. There was no evidence of inconsistency detected between direct and indirect treatment comparisons in the networks, but sparse data led to frequently wide CIs. Available evidence does not suggest that any of the commonly used treatments for the management of PHP are better than any other, although corticosteroid injections, alone or in combination with exercise, and ESWT were ranked most likely to be effective for the management of short-term, medium-term and long-term pain or function; placebo/sham/control appeared least likely to be effective; and exercise appeared to only be beneficial for long-term pain or function.

Conclusions Current evidence is equivocal regarding which treatment is the most effective for the management of PHP. Given limited understanding of long-term effects, there is need for large, methodologically robust multicentre RCTs investigating and directly comparing commonly used treatments for the management of PHP.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42016046963.

  • primary care
  • meta-analysis
  • review
  • foot

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098998

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Investigation: OOB, MT, CL, LSC, AL, HBM, ER, DvdW. Formal analysis: OOB, AL. Writing—original draft: OOB, AL. Writing—review and editing: OOB, AL, CL, LSC, MT, HBM, ER, DvdW. Supervision: DvdW, ER. Project administration: OOB, DvdW.

    • Funding AL is supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Methods Fellowship. MJT has received funding through a NIHR School for Primary Care Research Launching Fellowship and is currently supported by a Health Education England (HEE)/NIHR Integrated Clinical Academic Programme Clinical Lectureship (ICA-CL-2016-02-014).

    • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, HEE or the Department of Health and Social Care.

    • Competing interests None daclared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.