Screen-Shot-2015-01-30-at-1.37.05-PM_resHo seguito una conferenza TheRunningClinic e immaginavo dove poteva finire una newsletter intitolata “flat foot – pronation and injuries” che rimandava all’articolo (in francese / inglese / spagnolo).

When reading a study, especially a high-quality randomized controlled trial or systematic review, I always question myself on the usefulness of updating my own practice based on reported conclusions, some of which challenge my beliefs … is static foot posture a risk factor for musculoskeletal injuries?

Do I need to start believing that pronating feet cause musculoskeletal pathologies? Do I need to start measuring the «navicular drop»? Do I need to equip my patients with plantar orthoses to correct these «flaws»? … Why did the authors did not mention the absence of link between the majority of reviewed pathologies and static foot measurements?

IMG_3929IMG_3931IMG_3935

This study will definitely not change my clinical practice because of my extremely low confidence level in its results. I will not start measuring «navicular drop» nor telling my patients that their ever established pronating feet have anything to do with the recent injury (including medial tibial stress syndrome) for which they seek medical attention! It’s just too bad that the included studies weren’t performed in Africa where the majority of people have flat feet

Se l’inglese discorsivo dal blog di Blaise Dubois vi è ostico, provo con quello sintetico dalle slide di Jill Cook, citata anche pochi giorni fa, e magari continuo con qualcosa di personale in italiano.

1 – continua

Share