Background: Currently, the Ponseti method is the gold standard for treatment of clubfeet. For long-term func- tional evaluation of this method, gait analysis can be performed. Previous studies have assessed gait differences between Ponseti treated clubfeet and healthy controls. Research question/purpose: The aims of this systematic review were to compare the gait kinetics of Ponseti treated clubfeet with healthy controls and to compare the gait kinetics between clubfoot patients treated with the Ponseti method or surgically. Methods: A systematic search was performed in Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Cinahl ebsco, and Google scholar, for studies reporting on gait kinetics in children with clubfeet treated with the Ponseti method. Studies were excluded if they only used EMG or pedobarography. Data were extracted and a risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses and qualitative analyses were performed. Results: Nine studies were included, of which five were included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses showed that ankle plantarflexor moment (95% CI -0.25 to -0.19) and ankle power (95% CI -0.89 to -0.60, were significantly lower in the Ponseti treated clubfeet compared to the healthy controls. No significant difference was found in ankle dorsiflexor and plantarflexor moment, and ankle power between clubfeet treated with surgery compared to the Ponseti method. Significance: Differences in gait kinetics are present when comparing Ponseti treated clubfeet with healthy controls. However, there is no significant difference between surgically and Ponseti treated clubfeet. These results give more insight in the possibilities of improving the gait pattern of patients treated for clubfeet.
Previous research shows that automatic tendency to approach alcohol plays a causal role in problematic alcohol use and can be retrained by Approach Bias Modification (ApBM). ApBM has been shown to be effective for patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder (AUD) in inpatient treatment. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of adding an online ApBM to treatment as usual (TAU) in an outpatient setting compared to receiving TAU with an online placebo training. 139 AUD patients receiving face-to-face or online treatment as usual (TAU) participated in the study. The patients were randomized to an active or placebo version of 8 sessions of online ApBM over a 5-week period. The weekly consumed standard units of alcohol (primary outcome) was measured at pre-and post-training, 3 and 6 months follow-up. Approach tendency was measured pre-and-post ApBM training. No additional effect of ApBM was found on alcohol intake, nor other outcomes such as craving, depression, anxiety, or stress. A significant reduction of the alcohol approach bias was found. This research showed that approach bias retraining in AUD patients in an outpatient treatment setting reduces the tendency to approach alcohol, but this training effect does not translate into a significant difference in alcohol reduction between groups. Explanations for the lack of effects of ApBM on alcohol consumption are treatment goal and severity of AUD. Future ApBM research should target outpatients with an abstinence goal and offer alternative, more user-friendly modes of delivering ApBM training.
MULTIFILE
Previous research shows that automatic tendency to approach alcohol plays a causal role in problematic alcohol use and can be retrained by Approach Bias Modification (ApBM). ApBM has been shown to be effective for patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder (AUD) in inpatient treatment. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of adding an online ApBM to treatment as usual (TAU) in an outpatient setting compared to receiving TAU with an online placebo training. 139 AUD patients receiving face-to-face or online treatment as usual (TAU) participated in the study. The patients were randomized to an active or placebo version of 8 sessions of online ApBM over a 5-week period. The weekly consumed standard units of alcohol (primary outcome) was measured at pre-and post-training, 3 and 6 months follow-up. Approach tendency was measured pre-and-post ApBM training. No additional effect of ApBM was found on alcohol intake, nor other outcomes such as craving, depression, anxiety, or stress. A significant reduction of the alcohol approach bias was found. This research showed that approach bias retraining in AUD patients in an outpatient treatment setting reduces the tendency to approach alcohol, but this training effect does not translate into a significant difference in alcohol reduction between groups. Explanations for the lack of effects of ApBM on alcohol consumption are treatment goal and severity of AUD. Future ApBM research should target outpatients with an abstinence goal and offer alternative, more user-friendly modes of delivering ApBM training.
