Clinical trial NCT04746755: Effectiveness of Four Orthotic Insoles on Pain in the Lower Body Associated With Musculoskeletal Stress
Official title: An Open-label, Single-centre, Parallel-group Clinical Investigation, to Evaluate the Effectiveness and In-use Tolerability of a Range of Four Orthotic Insoles on Target Areas of Pain in the Lower Body, Associated With Musculoskeletal Stress, Experienced by Those Who Spend Most of Their Working Day on Their Feet
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: TERMINATED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Musculoskeletal Pain
Lead sponsor: Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Limited
Sponsor class: INDUSTRY
Collaborators: name: SynteractHCR Deutschland GmbH
First posted: 2021-02-10
Enrollment: 145
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: An open-label, single-centre, parallel-group clinical investigation
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: This was an open-label, single-centre, parallel-group clinical investigation, to evaluate the effectiveness and in-use tolerability of a range of four orthotic insoles on target areas of pain in the lower body, associated with musculoskeletal stress, experienced by those who spend most of their working day on their feet

Detailed description: This was an open-label, single-centre, parallel-group clinical investigation, to evaluate the effectiveness and in-use tolerability of a range of four orthotic insoles on target areas of pain in the lower body, associated with musculoskeletal stress, experienced by those who spend most of their working day on their feet.

The investigation design included two periods; 'run-in' period and 'treatment' period. The treatment period comprised of two sub-periods; a 'breaking-in' period and the 'full use' period. The breaking-in period was intended to allow time for the subjects' feet to accustom to wearing the insoles. The full-use period was used to determine effectiveness of the insoles. These periods constitute lengths of time defined for the purpose of the investigation as "working episodes". Working episodes were defined as at least 3 (up to 6) consecutive working days of at least 6 hours each at work, following at least 2 consecutive non-working days.

Eligible subjects at Visit 1 (screening) were enrolled into the run-in period, where subjects were assessed prior to treatment with the insoles under investigation. During the run-in period, consisting of one working episode, subjects self-reported their pain without using insoles on a daily basis (Q3-9 of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)), in order to provide the baseline data to which the insoles were compared. Eligible subjects were enrolled into the treatment period at Visit 2 and assigned the insole relevant to the target pain area/pain area combination. Insole use was built up gradually during a breaking-in period, which constituted one working episode, with at least one nonworking day prior to the start of the working episode. Following the breaking-in period, the full-use period commenced. During the treatment period, subjects wore the insoles on working days and as much as possible on non-working days, self-reporting their pain daily (BPI Questions 3 - 9 inclusive).

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

1. Those who gave informed consent.
2. Those who understood the purpose of the investigation, cooperate with the investigation procedures and tasks and were to attend the investigational site for all investigation assessments.
3. Those were willing to continue with their normal daily activities, including any cosmetic foot care regimens (including the use of products) throughout the investigation and not partake in exercise which is not normal for them and which would be deemed by the Investigator to impact study assessments, or any new foot care or podiatric treatments unless agreed in advance with the Investigator.
4. Those who wore the same or similar type of standard shoe during their working day/shift for at least the 4 weeks prior to enrolment (Visit 1) (or they have worn a different shoe which cause no change to their pain) and who were able to wear the same standard\* shoe during their working day / shift for the duration of the investigation.

   Eligibility regarding this criterion was confirmed at Visit 1 but will also confirmed by the physiotherapist at Visit 2, following their assessment.

   \*A standard shoe was defined as closed shoe, ≤2-inch heel, with an adequate sole, upper and toe box to accommodate the orthotic insole, as determined by the physiotherapist. Shoes with orthotic-type internal contouring (as determined by the physiotherapist to include features which could alter gait) or shoes with an arch support greater than 12 mm would not be permitted. Odour-eaters cannot be used during the treatment period.
5. Male and female subjects from the age of 18 years and a BMI of 18.5-29.9 kg/m² inclusive.
6. Those who had access to a mobile device (iOS or Android smart phone or tablet), with access to the internet, and are able to operate an app.
7. Those with a shoe size between 4.5 to 11 (UK).
8. Those who worked at least 30 hours per week which usually involved "working episodes"

   (defined as at least 3 (up to 6) consecutive working days (of at least 6 hours each at work) following at least 2 consecutive non-working days), which were expected to continue throughout their involvement in the investigation, and included at least 4 working episodes during the 4 (up to 5)-week treatment period.

   These working episodes should be non-complex in the opinion of the Investigator, to ensure continued eligibility.
9. Those who spent most (at least three quarters) of their working day on their feet, and remained in their current employment/work environment throughout the investigation period.
10. Those who have experienced pain associated with musculoskeletal stress during working episodes, for at least 4 weeks prior to enrolment (Visit 1) that they can distinguish as being in one of the following primary areas of pain or combination thereof, that the Investigator or designee considers could be treated with the relevant insole to be used in the investigation:

    * Lower back
    * Knee and/or Heel
    * Arch
    * Heel

    Eligibility regarding this criterion will also be confirmed by the physiotherapist at Visit 2, following their assessment.
11. Those who scored an average of 5 (±1) on the BPI average pain item (question 5) over the first three consecutive working days of the run-in period working episode\*\*, when assessed specifically in their primary target pain area/pain area combination, as confirmed at Visit 2.

    * If the run-in period constituted more than one working episode (e.g. due to the scheduling of Visit 2), only the data from the first working episode was included in the calculation to determine eligibility, providing this included at least three consecutive working days. Otherwise data from the second working episode was used.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Those who had a current medical condition that is contraindicated by the use of the orthotic insoles (e.g. peripheral vascular disease, sensory neuropathy or diabetes).
2. Those who currently use prescribed orthotics for biomechanical or other issues, or have received and used prescribed orthotics within the last 12 months or over-the-counter (OTC) orthotics in the last 6 months (odour-eaters and any non-structured/non-orthotic shock-absorber insole were permitted).
3. Those with any significant medical history which in the opinion of the Investigator could have interfered with the assessments of the investigation. For example; structural conditions (e.g. bunion or bunionette), lower limb or foot injury, rheumatic disease (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, polymyalgia rheumatica), fibromyalgia, neurological disease or moderate to severe depression.
4. Those who were taking any of the following medications:

   1. Anti-psychotic, sedatives, muscle-relaxants or medicines intended to treat neuropathic pain
   2. Anti-inflammatory medications which would reduce systemic inflammation or locally at the target pain areas (low dose Aspirin (75 mg daily) and nasal/inhaled steroids could have been considered acceptable, where in the opinion of the Investigator they would not interfere with the assessments of the investigation)
   3. An unstable dose of anti-depressants (defined as a change in therapy within the last 6 months).
5. Those who are taking regular medication for targeted pain (including OTC pain relief, in excess of 2g paracetamol daily) which is either beyond the maximum recommended daily dose according to the SmPC or which the Investigator deems inappropriate for the subject to continue at the same dose throughout the investigation.
6. Those who were pregnant or who had given birth within the past 6 months.
7. Females of child-bearing potential who were unwilling to use a minimum of an "acceptable" (as defined by the Clinical Trials Facilitation Group (CFTG; 2014) recommendations) level of birth control, for the entire duration of the investigation.

   Suitable methods of birth control (in accordance with "highly effective" and "acceptable" methods of birth control defined by the CTFG) included:
   1. Combined (estrogen and progestogen containing) hormonal contraception associated with the inhibition of ovulation; oral, intravaginal, transdermal.
   2. Progestogen-only hormonal contraception associated with the inhibition of ovulation; oral, intravaginal, transdermal.
   3. Progestogen-only oral hormonal contraception, where inhibition of ovulation is not the primary mode of action
   4. Male or female condom with or without spermicide
   5. Cap, diaphragm or sponge with spermicide
   6. Intrauterine device
   7. Intrauterine hormone-releasing system
   8. Bilateral tubal occlusion
   9. Vasectomised partner (where this was the subject's sole sexual partner and where the vasectomised partner had received medical assessment of the surgical success)
   10. Sexual abstinence (where the subject was willing to refrain from heterosexual intercourse during the entire period of the investigation in line with their preferred and usual lifestyle)

   Females who were considered to be of child-bearing potential were those who were fertile, following menarche and until becoming post-menopausal unless permanently sterile. Permanent sterilisation methods include hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy and bilateral oophorectomy. A post-menopausal state is defined as no menses for 12 months without an alternative medical cause (Clinical Trials Facilitation Group, 2014).
8. Those who suffered from allergies or sensitivities to the raw material of the insoles (as detailed in the Investigator Brochure).
9. Those who had participated in another clinical investigation within the 3 months prior to enrolment into the run-in period.
10. Employee at the investigational site, or a partner or first degree relative of the Investigator or member of the investigation team at the site.
11. Those, in the opinion of the Investigator, who were not deemed suitable or were unable to comply fully with the investigation requirements, for any other reason.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress. Assessed though the change in pain, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire score. (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Time frame is dependent on working pattern Days 0-5 compared to Days 44-47 and Days 0-3 compared to Days 27-30
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress over the first three days of each working episode. Assessed though change in pain, measured by the BPI. (For each of the four orthotic insoles)
timeFrame: Days 0-5 compared to Days 23-26, Days 30-33, Days 37-40, Days 0-3 compared to Day 12-15, Day 17-20, Day 22-25, Day 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress over each working episode. Assessed though change in pain, measured by the BPI questionnaire.(For each of the four orthotic insoles)
timeFrame: Days 0-5 compared to Day 23-28, Day 30-35, Day 37-42, Day 44-49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days, Days 0-3 compared to Day 12-15, Day 17-20, Day 22-25, Day 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Proportion of subjects who achieve a change of ≥1 unit from baseline Assessed though the change in pain, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire score. (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Days 0-5 compared to Days 44-47 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days, Days 0-3 compared to Days 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Subject impression of change in pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Day 6 and Day 15 (Visit 1) compared to Day 31 and Day 50 depending on the subjects working pattern.
measure: Investigator impression of change in subjects' pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Day 6 and Day 15 (Visit 1) compared to Day 31 and Day 50 depending on the subjects working pattern.
measure: Change in quality of life, associated with improvement pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire. (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Day 5 compared to Day 23-28, Day 30-35, Days 37-42 Day 44-49 for subjects that worked 5 CWD or Day 3 compared to Day 12-15, Day 17-20, Day 22-25, Day 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 CWD
measure: Change in quality of life, associated with improvement in pain as assessed by the EQ-5D-5L (questionaire) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Day 3 up to 5 compared to Day 49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days or Day 30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Change in work productivity and activity as assessed by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Quality of life on Day 3 up to 5 compared to Day 49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days or Day 30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Subject impression of change in their work productivity and activity. (Visual Analogue Scale) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Quality of life improvement assessed on Day 49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days or Day 30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Investigator impression of change in quality of life (Visual Analogue Scale) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: Quality of life improvement assessed on Day 49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days or Day 30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Safety and tolerability of the device (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately.)
timeFrame: through to study completion, from point of informed consent (Day 1) up to Visit 3 (Day 50)
Other outcomes:
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress during the first three days of the break-in working episode. As assessed by the change in BPI questionnaire. (For each of the four orthotic insoles)
timeFrame: Average pain on Days 0-3 compared to Days 7-10 for subjects that worked three consecutive working days, Average pain on Days 0-5 compared to Days 9-14 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress during the break-in working episode. As assessed by the change in the BPI score. (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately)
timeFrame: Average pain on Days 3 was compared that on Day 10 for subjects that worked three consecutive working days, Average pain on Days 5 compared to Day 14 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days.
measure: Change in quality of life, associated with improvement pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire following the break-in period (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately)
timeFrame: Day 5 compared to Day 23-28, Day 30-35, Days 37-42, Day 44-49 for subjects that worked five CWD or Day 3 compared to Day 12-15, Day 17-20, Day 22-25, Day 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 CWD
measure: Subject perceived improvement of symptoms (questionnaire) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately)
timeFrame: Days 11-21 of the full-use period for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Days 22-32 of the full-use period for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days.
measure: Subjects impressions of comfort and impact of insoles (questionnaire) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately)
timeFrame: Daily though out the treatment period. Day 11 to Day 30 of the full-use period for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 21 to 49 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days.
measure: Subjects impressions tolerability (Visual Analogue Scale) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately)
timeFrame: Day 31 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 50 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days.
measure: Subject experience and satisfaction of insoles (Visual Analogue Scale)
timeFrame: Daily though out the treatment period. Day 11 to Day 30 of the full-use period for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 21 to 49 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days.
measure: Investigator impression of tolerability (Visual Analogue Scale) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately)
timeFrame: Day 31 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 50 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days
measure: Investigator global impression of tolerability (Statement) (For each of the four orthotic insoles separately)
timeFrame: Day 31 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 50 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days
measure: Subjects impressions (questionnaire)
timeFrame: Day 31 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 50 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress. Assessed though the change in pain, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire. (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Time frame is dependent on working pattern Days 0-5 compared to Days 44-47 and Days 0-3 compared to Days 27-30
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress over the first three days of each working episode. Assessed change in pain, measured by the BPI questionnaire. (analysed for all insoles)
timeFrame: Days 0-5 compared to Days 23-26, Days 30-33, Days 37-40, Days 0-3 compared to Day 12-15, Day 17-20, Day 22-25, Day 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress over each working episode. Assessed though the change in pain, measured by the BPI questionnaire.(analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Days 0-5 compared to Day 23-28, Day 30-35, Day 37-42, Day 44-49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days, Days 0-3 compared to Day 12-15, Day 17-20, Day 22-25, Day 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Proportion of subjects who achieve a change of ≥1 unit from baseline.Assessed though the change in pain, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire. (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Days 0-5 compared to Days 44-47 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days, Days 0-3 compared to Days 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Subject impression of change in pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 6 and Day 15 (Visit 1) compared to Day 31 and Day 50 depending on the subjects working pattern.
measure: Investigator impression of change in subjects' pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 6 and Day 15 (Visit 1) compared to Day 31 and Day 50 depending on the subjects working pattern.
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress during the first three days of the break-in working episode. Assessed change in pain, measured by the BPI questionnaire. (analysed for all insoles)
timeFrame: Average pain on Days 0-3 compared to Days 7-10 for subjects that worked three consecutive working days, Average pain on Days 0-5 compared to Days 9-14 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days
measure: Evaluation of the pain relief caused by orthotic insoles on pain associated with musculoskeletal stress during the break-in working episode Assessed though the change in pain, measured by the BPI questionnaire.(analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Average pain on Days 3 was compared that on Day 10 for subjects that worked three consecutive working days, Average pain on Days 5 compared to Day 14 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days.
measure: Change in quality of life, associated with improvement pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 5 compared to Day 23-28, Day 30-35, Days 37-42 Day 44-49 for subjects that worked 5 CWD or Day 3 compared to Day 12-15, Day 17-20, Day 22-25, Day 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 CWD
measure: Change in quality of life, associated with improvement in pain as assessed by the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 3 up to 5 compared to Day 49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days or Day 30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Change in work productivity and activity as assessed by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Quality of life on Day 3 up to 5 compared to Day 49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days or Day 30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Subject impression of change in their work productivity and activity. (Visual Analogue Scale) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Quality of life improvement assessed on Day 49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days or Day 30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Investigator impression of change in quality of life (Visual Analogue Scale) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Quality of life improvement assessed on Day 49 for subjects that worked five consecutive working days or Day 30 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days
measure: Safety and tolerability of the device (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: through study completion, from point of informed consent (Day 1) up to Visit 3 (Day 50)
measure: Change in quality of life, associated with improvement pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory following the break-in period (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 5 compared to Day 23-28, Day 30-35, Days 37-42, Day 44-49 for subjects that worked five CWD or Day 3 compared to Day 12-15, Day 17-20, Day 22-25, Day 27-30 for subjects that worked 3 CWD
measure: Subject perceived improvement of symptoms (questionnaire) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Days 11-21 of the full-use period for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Days 22-32 of the full-use period for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days.
measure: Subjects impressions of comfort and impact of insoles (questionnaire) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Daily though out the treatment period. Day 11 to Day 30 of the full-use period for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 21 to 49 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days.
measure: Subjects impressions of tolerability (Visual Analogue Scale) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 31 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 50 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days.
measure: Subjects experience and satisfaction of insoles (Visual Analogue Scale) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Daily though out the treatment period. Day 11 to Day 30 of the full-use period for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 21 to 49 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days.
measure: Investigator impression of tolerability (Visual Analogue Scale) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 31 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 50 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days
measure: Investigator global impression of tolerability(Statement) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 31 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 50 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days
measure: Subjects impressions (Questionnaires) (analysed for all insoles collectively)
timeFrame: Day 31 for subjects that worked 3 consecutive working days. Day 50 for subjects that worked 5 consecutive working days
Locations:
city: Glasgow
country: United Kingdom
facility: CPS Research
state: Scotland
Study officials:
affiliation: Gordon.crawford@cpsresearch.co.uk
name: Gordon Crawford, BSc (Hons), MBChB
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Almeida JS, Vanderlei FM, Pastre EC, Martins RA, Padovani CR, Filho GC. Comparison of Two Types of Insoles on Musculoskeletal Symptoms and Plantar Pressure Distribution in a Work Environment: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin Med Res. 2016 Jun;14(2):67-74. doi: 10.3121/cmr.2016.1301. Epub 2016 May 26.
citation: Amer AO, Jarl GM, Hermansson LN. The effect of insoles on foot pain and daily activities. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014 Dec;38(6):474-80. doi: 10.1177/0309364613512369. Epub 2013 Dec 13.
citation: Basford JR, Smith MA. Shoe insoles in the workplace. Orthopedics. 1988 Feb;11(2):285-8. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19880201-08.
citation: Bonanno DR, Landorf KB, Munteanu SE, Murley GS, Menz HB. Effectiveness of foot orthoses and shock-absorbing insoles for the prevention of injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017 Jan;51(2):86-96. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096671. Epub 2016 Dec 5.
citation: Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole MR. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001 Nov;94(2):149-158. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9.
citation: Gill TK, Menz HB, Landorf KB, Arnold JB, Taylor AW, Hill CL. Identification of Clusters of Foot Pain Location in a Community Sample. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Dec;69(12):1903-1908. doi: 10.1002/acr.23212. Epub 2017 Nov 14.
citation: Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993 Nov;4(5):353-65. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006.
citation: Shabat S, Gefen T, Nyska M, Folman Y, Gepstein R. The effect of insoles on the incidence and severity of low back pain among workers whose job involves long-distance walking. Eur Spine J. 2005 Aug;14(6):546-50. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0824-z. Epub 2005 Jan 25.
citation: Sobel E, Levitz SJ, Caselli MA, Christos PJ, Rosenblum J. The effect of customized insoles on the reduction of postwork discomfort. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2001 Nov-Dec;91(10):515-20. doi: 10.7547/87507315-91-10-515.
citation: Stanhope J. Brief Pain Inventory review. Occup Med (Lond). 2016 Aug;66(6):496-7. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqw041. Epub 2016 Apr 11. No abstract available.
citation: Stolt M, Suhonen R, Virolainen P, Leino-Kilpi H. Lower extremity musculoskeletal disorders in nurses: A narrative literature review. Scand J Public Health. 2016 Feb;44(1):106-15. doi: 10.1177/1403494815602989. Epub 2015 Sep 9.
citation: Waters TR, Dick RB. Evidence of health risks associated with prolonged standing at work and intervention effectiveness. Rehabil Nurs. 2015 May-Jun;40(3):148-65. doi: 10.1002/rnj.166. Epub 2014 Jul 7.