Independent research. Not marketing.

Each of these tested a physical Interpod orthotic on human participants. Four universities, three countries: La Trobe (Australia), Duquesne (United States), Southampton and Plymouth (United Kingdom). This is the only figure we use when we say “8 independent studies.”

Studies that validate thesupination resistance testand the Keystone, the measuring instrument Interpod developed. Led by a fifth university, UQTR in Canada. These prove our prescription method is sound — they do not test an orthotic. Counting them alongside the eight would overstate the evidence for our devices, so we don't.

Research in which Interpod devices were used, but where the university chose not to name any manufacturer in the published paper. We hold written confirmation from the research group. Becauseyoucannot verify it from the paper, we exclude it from the eight and disclose it separately.

Established biomechanics that explainwhyour design features work — Hicks on the windlass, Roukis on first-ray function. Landmark science by other researchers. It is the foundation our features are built on, not evidence about Interpod.

Comfort, fit and control of prefabricated foot orthoses — and comparison with custom

Participants alternated between Interpod prefabricated orthoses and custom-made polypropylene orthoses; a further arm compared Interpod against six competitor prefabricated brands (Vasyli, Spenco, Dr Scholl, Orthaheel, Alphathotic, Footsteps). Interpod matched custom on comfort and fit, and outperformed every competitor on the ability to change rearfoot position — the primary clinical goal of a foot orthotic — driven by its medial rearfoot wedging.

Effects of a plantar fascial groove in a foot orthotic on the windlass mechanism

25 subjects were tested barefoot and on two identical Interpod orthoses — one with and one without a plantar fascial groove. The groove reduced the force needed to dorsiflex the hallux (a proxy for engaging the windlass) by up to 57%. The windlass is how the foot raises its own arch and stiffens during gait; lowering the force to engage it improves how efficiently you walk and run.

The response of the foot to prefabricated orthoses of different arch heights

16 subjects stood on six different Interpod orthoses (three rigid polypropylene at different arch heights, two soft polyurethane, and one slim fit). Every device inverted the calcaneus and raised the arch. The greater the foot's resistance to supination, the smaller the change — the clinical rationale for offering three support levels to match different feet.

Static stance response to different types of foot orthoses

18 subjects tested six prefabricated orthotics. The design parameter that determined effectiveness was medial heel wedging — a core Interpod feature. Brands without it (Vasyli, Formthotics, and a basic arch cookie) failed to change foot position.

Improved gait efficiency — centre-of-mass trajectory

Centre-of-mass trajectory analysis showed gait moving nearer the body's ideal path with Interpod orthoses. A trajectory closer to ideal means less energy expended per step, which translates to reduced fatigue and lower joint stress. We report this finding qualitatively — the measure is directional, and we do not attach a precise percentage to it.

Tested - Landing Kinematics

Twenty uninjured collegiate athletes (basketball, soccer, volleyball) with pes planus performed landing tasks with and without a rigid 6°-posted prefabricated orthotic. Statistical analysis found the orthotic had little influence on lower-limb transverse-plane kinematics during landing. We include this study in full, because independent research means reporting what the data show — not only the favourable results. The honest read: orthotic effect is task-dependent — strong in stance and gait (above), limited in explosive landing.

Effect of Interpod and custom orthoses on plantar loading of the first metatarsophalangeal joint during gait

A blind randomised crossover design on participants compared Interpod prefabricated orthotics, custom orthotics, and a shoe-only control using the Pedar in-shoe pressure system during gait. Interpod delivered equivalent plantar-loading outcomes to custom-made devices during dynamic walking — the second pillar, alongside La Trobe, of the equivalence claim.

Custom-made total-contact insoles and prefabricated functional diabetic insoles: a case report

A diabetic patient with a history of forefoot ulceration was assessed with F-scan in-shoe pressure analysis comparing a custom total-contact insole and the Interpod diabetic insole. The Interpod device produced comparable forefoot offloading. As a single case report this points to equivalence with custom in this application — not superiority; larger trials are needed to establish more.

DIABETIC FOOT JOURNAL 2007;10(3)138-143

The Keystone device as a clinical tool for measuring supination resistance: a reliability study

Thirty adults were measured one week apart. The Keystone gives clinicians an objective force reading to match support level to the individual foot — the basis for Interpod's three support levels and the Modular trial. It has since been adopted by researchers internationally.

Supination resistance variations in foot and ankle musculoskeletal disorders

Independent researchers used the Keystone to show that supination resistance varies with the disorder present, and that varus or valgus wedging modifies it. It supports the principle behind Interpod's rearfoot wedge and support levels: match the force the foot generates. The paper's methods name the Keystone device directly. It measures the foot, not an Interpod orthotic, so it stays outside the eight.

Establishing normative values for the supination resistance test: an international cross-sectional study

Independent researchers across multiple countries chose the Keystone (Interpod, Australia) as their measurement instrument — further evidence the method is trusted. This validates measurement, not a device, so it stays outside our device-study count.

Position of the subtalar joint axis and resistance of the rearfoot to supination

This is method foundation, not a device study: it explainswhysupination resistance is the right thing to measure, and why the subtalar-axis position (not arch shape) drives the forces a foot generates. Interpod's rearfoot wedge and three support levels are built on it.

Exploring the relationship between the supination resistance test and the effects of foot orthoses on foot and ankle biomechanics during walking

This is the scientific principle Interpod is built on: the rearfoot wedge does more for the feet that need it more, which is why support level should be matched to the individual foot rather than to arch shape. The published paper describes the devices only as thin-flexible and medially wedged foot orthoses, and does not name a manufacturer. We make no claim on this page that a reader cannot check.

Hicks JH. The mechanics of the foot. II. The plantar aponeurosis and the arch. Journal of Anatomy. 1954;88(1):25–30.

The original description of the windlass — the plantar fascia as a cable wound around the metatarsal-head drum, raising the arch as the toes dorsiflex at push-off. The mechanism the Plantar Fascial Groove and 1st Ray Cutaway are designed to assist.

Roukis TS, Scherer PR, Anderson CF.Position of the first ray and motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint.Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.1996;86(11):538–546.