4.6 Review

A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews on the Epidemiology, Evaluation, and Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis

Journal

LIFE-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life11121287

Keywords

plantar fasciitis; plantar fasciopathy; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The review provided a comprehensive summary of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on plantar fasciitis, highlighting the consensus on certain topics despite the high heterogeneity among the majority of reviews. Identified areas for future research include epidemiology, exercise therapy, and cost-effectiveness of treatment options.
The number of systematic review and meta-analyses on plantar fasciitis is expanding. The purpose of this review was to provide a comprehensive summary of reviews on the topic pertaining to plantar fasciitis, identify any conflicting and inconsistent results, and propose future research direction. A qualitative review of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to plantar fasciitis up to February 2021 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database. A total of 1052 articles were initially identified and 96 met the inclusion criteria. Included articles were summarized and divided into the following topics: epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. While the majority of reviews had high level of heterogeneity and included a small number of studies, there was general consensus on certain topics, such as BMI as a risk factor for plantar fasciitis and extracorporeal shockwave therapy as an effective mode of therapy. A qualitative summary of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published on plantar fasciitis provides a single source of updated information for clinicians. Evidence on topics such as the epidemiology, exercise therapy, or cost-effectiveness of treatment options for plantar fasciitis are lacking and warrant future research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available