Biomechanical effects of valgus knee bracing: a systematic review and meta-analysis R.F. Moyer, T.B. Birmingham, D.M. Bryant, J.R. Giffin, K.A. Marriott, K.M. Leitch Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 178-188 (February 2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.018 Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 1 The 2009 PRISMA Flowchart. Thirty studies were included for descriptive and qualitative analysis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 178-188DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.018) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 2 SMD and 95% CI for the external KAM during walking with and without a valgus knee brace. The diamond represents the pooled effect size using a random effects model. The vertical line at 0 represents no difference. Data to the right of 0 represent a decrease in the peak external KAM. According to the I2 and Q statistic (P value), heterogeneity was moderate and significant. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 178-188DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.018) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 3 Funnel plot representing publication bias across seventeen studies. The white and gray diamonds represent the observed and adjusted effect sizes for the KAM, respectively. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 178-188DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.018) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions
Fig. 4 Event rates and 95% CI for difficulties and complications during brace use. Significant heterogeneity prevented data pooling. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2015 23, 178-188DOI: (10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.018) Copyright © 2014 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Terms and Conditions