Proprioception is a vital aspect of motor control and when degraded or lost can have a profound impact on function in diverse clinical populations. This systematic review aimed to identify clinically related tools to measure proprioceptive acuity, to classify the construct(s) underpinning the tools, and to report on the clinimetric properties of the tools. We searched key databases with the pertinent search terms, and from an initial list of 935 articles, we identified 57 of relevance. These articles described 32 different tools or methods to quantify proprioception. There was wide variation in methods, the joints able to be tested, and the populations sampled. The predominant construct was active or passive joint position detection, followed by passive motion detection and motion direction discrimination. The clinimetric properties were mostly poorly evaluated or reported. The Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Perception was generally considered to be a valid and reliable tool but with low precision; other tools with higher precision are potentially not clinically feasible. Clinicians and clinical researchers can use the summary tables to make more informed decisions about which tool to use to match their predominant requirements. Further discussion and research is needed to produce measures of proprioception that have improved validity and utility.

There is currently no validated full-body lifting model publicly available on the OpenSim modelling platform to estimate spinal loads during lifting. In this study, the existing full-body-lumbar-spine model was adapted and validated for lifting motions to produce the lifting full-body model. Back muscle activations predicted by the model closely matched the measured erector spinae activation patterns. Model estimates of intradiscal pressures and in vivo measurements were strongly correlated. The same spine loading trends were observed for model estimates and reported vertebral body implant measurements. These results demonstrate the suitability of this model to evaluate changes in lumbar loading during lifting.

Background: Foot orthoses are widely used in the management of flexible pes planus, yet the evidence to support this intervention has not been clearly defined. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise the evidence for the use of foot orthoses for flexible pes planus in adults.Methods: Electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of science, SportDiscus, Embase) were systematically searched in June 2013 for randomised controlled, controlled clinical and repeated measure trials where participants had identified flexible pes planus using a validated and reliable measure of pes planus and the intervention was a rigid or semi‐rigid orthoses with the comparison being a no‐orthoses (shoes alone or flat non‐posted insert) condition. Outcomes of interest were foot pain, rearfoot kinematics, foot kinetics and physical function.Results: Of the 2,211 articles identified by the searches, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria; two were randomised controlled trials, one was a controlled trial and 10 were repeated measure studies. Across the included studies, 59 relevant outcome measures were reported with 17 calculated as statistically significant large or medium effects observed with use of foot orthoses compared to the no orthoses condition (SMD range 1.13 to ‐4.11).Conclusions: No high level evidence supported the use of foot orthoses for flexible pes planus. There is good to moderate level evidence that foot orthoses improve physical function (medial‐lateral sway in standing (level II) and energy cost during walking (level III)). There is low level evidence (level IV) that foot orthoses improve pain, reduce rearfoot eversion, alter loading and impact forces; and reduce rearfoot inversion and eversion moments in flexible pes planus. Well‐designed randomised controlled trials that include appropriate sample sizes, clinical cohorts and involve a measure of symptom change are required to determine the efficacy of foot orthoses to manage adult flexible pes planus.