It is many blog posts on the topic of plantar fasciitis, which is a common form of inflammation. These articles often deal with misconceptions about the condition, and it is often necessary to debunk some of the myths and incorrect information that circulates in unaccountable online outlets. One of the most difficult aspects of this condition is the way it automatically self-corrects, which can lead to the impression that a particular treatment is effective. However, even placebo treatments can show an improvement in this ailment simply because they make it appear that the technique was effective. In reality, people who suffer from this type of fasciitis may experience an improvement in the condition without any intervention; this is just an unusual attribute of the condition itself.
There are many current treatments for plantar fasciitis did not undergo the kind of rigorous testing and peer-review process that is normally expected. Studies that did exist often contained serious flaws in the methodology employed by the researchers. It is necessary to find treatments and intervention therapies that conform to the accepted standards and best practices in clinical research.
A recently published case study is cited here, and it can be used as an example of the process that is widely accepted in research fields. This study used evidence to support the intervention or treatment plan, and this is the model that I am advocating. Prospective clinical studies rarely achieve this level of evidence, which is required to make an effective plan for treatment. Uniform or identical treatment plans are seldom effective for everyone, so people who propose them should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
In this study, a control group was used to measure the volume of the intrinsic foot musculature. The study used a control group to test the volumetric mass of the plantar surface. This allowed the research team to differentiate between experienced runners who have the condition and those runners who do not have any pain or inflammation in the plantar fascia. The study was published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. Although the study with a larger control group is better, this study did a good job on making the selected group representative of the general population.
The methods were sound, and the analytical statements were made based on empirical evidence. In this study, the control group of runners without any foot condition had a measurably larger volume and intrinsic muscle strength than the test group of runners with plantar fasciitis. However, this is clearly a case control type of study, so no conclusions can be reached simply by examining the findings. In other words, discernible muscle weakness was found in the test group, but there is no positive correlation between this lack of volume in the proximal plantar muscles and the fasciitis.
There is no harm in addressing intrinsic foot muscle weakness alongside with the fasciitis problem. It is not absolutely necessary to define a causative relationship between the two before treating both conditions. Many laudable studies will remain inconclusive, and this is just a part of the process of publishing research. However, there is nothing to prevent a clinical treatment plan from being developed based on existing evidence, and the research studies aid in this process. As long as the theoretical basis of the treatment plan maintains coherency with the evidence presented, it should produce the desired results. Evidence-based treatment plans are not infallible, but they build the foundation for future efforts.