## 3 Results
### Network Meta-Analysis  
It could be seen in Figure 3, which presents the graphical representation of the evidence structures for the comparisons, that the included interventions involved Control, Lace-up ankle-support brace, Semirigid brace, and Custom foot orthotics, Hard custom foot orthotics, Soft custom foot orthotics, and Off-the-shelf orthotics. A comprehensive overview of the outcomes from both the consistency and inconsistency analyses is available in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Standard Deviations of Random Effects**} \\ \cline{3-4}
**Outcome Measures** & **Interventions** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Estimate in** \\ **the Context of a** \\ **Consistency Model** \\ **(95\%Cl)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Estimate in** \\ **the Context of an** \\ **Inconsistency Model** \\ **(95\%Cl)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Forefoot plantar & \begin{tabular}{c} Control, \\ Lace-up \\ **ankle-support brace,** \\ **Semirigid brace,** \\ **Custom foot orthotics** \\ \end{tabular} & 0.29 (0.02, 0.58) & 0,29 (0.02, 0.57) \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Midfoot plantar pressure} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Control, \\ Lace-up \\ **Semirigid brace,** \\ **Custom foot orthotics** \\ \end{tabular} & 0.09 (0.00, 0.19) & 0.10 (0.01, 0.19) \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{MLA} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Control, \\ Hard custom foot \\ **off custom foot** \\ **offuotics** \\ **Off-the-shelf orthotics** \\ \end{tabular} & 0.55 (0.03, 1.06) & 0.54 (0.04, 1.07) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Control: regular footwear.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The outcomes of the consistency and inconsistency analysis. Figure 2: The assessment of bias risk. (**A**) summary of bias risk; (**B**) graph of bias risk [13; 21; 38]. Figure 3: _Cont._  
Figure 3 portrays the evidential framework of the network meta-analysis, which includes three types of interventions for assessing the effects on forefoot plantar pressure, midfoot plantar pressure, and MLA. These interventions are compared within groups. The analysis of consistency and inconsistency is presented in Table 2, revealing robust consistency across all evidence structures. Notably, the random-effects standard deviations derived from both the consistency and inconsistency models were found to be identical. Therefore, the consistency model proved to be a robust approach for performing network meta-analysis. Figure 4, as well as Table 3, shows the probability rankings for each intervention in a mixed comparison. It is important to note that plantar pressure and MLA of the forefoot are continuous data, and the higher value is considered to be better. Consequently, in the probability rank for forefoot plantar pressure and MLA, Rank 1 represents the best performance, whereas, in midfoot plantar pressure, Rank 4 indicates superior performance. The supplementary material shows the outcomes of the network meta-analysis. This table illustrates the variations in synthesized effect sizes among different pairs of interventions. Referring to the probability rankings outlined in Table 3, custom foot orthotics may be the best choice of intervention with assistive devices for forefoot plantar pressure (0.81 in Rank 1 and 0.02 in Rank 4), lace-up ankle-support brace (0.08 in Rank 1 and 0.32 in Rank 4) and semirigid brace (0.09 in Rank 1 and 0.30 in Rank 4), two interventions that did not show a higher probability of selection compared to the control group wearing regular footwears (0.02 in Rank 1 and 0.36 in Rank 4). In midfoot plantar pressure, custom orthotics demonstrated the highest probability of selection, with a 0.02 ranking in Rank 1 and a 0.54 ranking in Rank 4, while lace-up ankle-support brace (0.24 in Rank 1 and 0.25 in Rank 4 and semirigid brace (0.28 in Rank 1 and 0.28 in Rank 1 and 0.19 in Rank 4) had a better selection probability relative to the control group wearing regular footwears (0.45 in Rank 1 and 0.02 in Rank 4).