Cheng · Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation 2024 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=?

Effects of short foot training on foot posture in patients with flatfeet: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials

PubMed 38517769 · doi:10.3233/BMR-230226 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis across eight databases (CNKI, WANFANG, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase) through March 2023. They evaluated the effect of short foot exercises versus control interventions on foot posture measures, specifically the navicular drop test and the Foot Posture Index, in individuals with flat feet.

What was found

The abstract reports no exact numerical effect sizes, confidence intervals, or study counts. Overall pooled analyses revealed no statistically significant difference between short foot exercises and control groups for either the navicular drop test or the Foot Posture Index. Subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in the navicular drop test only when short foot exercise interventions lasted longer than 6 weeks. A sensitivity analysis also indicated a significant improvement in the Foot Posture Index with short foot training.

Why it matters

Short foot training is commonly prescribed to strengthen intrinsic foot muscles in flatfoot, but this review suggests that short-duration programs may be insufficient to produce measurable changes in foot architecture. Clinicians designing rehabilitation protocols may need to prescribe interventions exceeding six weeks to achieve postural changes.

Limits

The abstract fails to report the number of included studies, total participant count, effect estimates, and confidence intervals. Most included studies did not clearly distinguish between symptomatic flatfoot patients and asymptomatic individuals with low arches, introducing potential clinical heterogeneity. The authors also noted that the existing literature suffers from small sample sizes.