Comparability of off the shelf foot orthoses in the redistribution of forces in midfoot osteoarthritis patients.

This was a secondary exploratory analysis, not a hypothesis test, so it describes mechanical differences but does not prove one orthosis is better. The results are descriptive, so they do not make formal statistical comparisons. FFO B was tested after the main trial, so its wearing schedule differed from FFO A and sham. In-shoe pressure measurement may be less accurate on curved orthotic surfaces. Only the symptomatic foot was tested, so the study does not show what happens when both feet are involved. The paper measured plantar pressure, not pain or walking function, so it does not show clinical benefit. The sham top cover was not completely inert, because it increased midfoot contact area and force compared with shoe only.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest, and no funding source played any role in the design or conduct of the study or in the writing of the manuscript.

Do not conclude that these orthoses are proven to relieve midfoot osteoarthritis pain or improve walking. This paper measured plantar pressure only, and the analysis was exploratory without formal hypothesis testing.