Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25741384›Full record

ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2015

Dynamic navicular motion measured using a stretch sensor is different between walking and running, and between over-ground and treadmill conditions.

Christian J Barton, Simon L Kappel, Peter Ahrendt, Ole Simonsen, Michael S Rathleff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Christian J BartonComplete Sports Care, Melbourne, Australia ; Lower Extremity Gait Studies Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia ; Pure Sports Medicine, London, Australia ; Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Simon L KappelDepartment of Engineering, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Peter AhrendtDepartment of Engineering, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ole SimonsenOrthopaedic Surgery Research Unit, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Michael S RathleffDepartment of Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark ; Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction, Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKAalborg University · DKAalborg University Hospital · DKLa Trobe University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive evaluation of in-shoe foot motion has traditionally been difficult. Recently a novel 'stretch-sensor' was proposed as an easy and reliable method to measure dynamic foot (navicular) motion. Further validation of this method is needed to determine how different gait analysis protocols affect dynamic navicular motion.

methodsPotential differences in magnitude and peak velocity of navicular motion using the 'stretch sensor' between (i) barefoot and shod conditions; (ii) overground and treadmill gait; and/or (iii) running and walking were evaluated in 26 healthy participants. Comparisons were made using paired t-tests.

resultsMagnitude and velocity of navicular motion was not different between barefoot and shod walking on the treadmill. Compared to walking, velocity of navicular motion during running was 59% and 210% higher over-ground (p < 0.0001) and on a treadmill (p < 0.0001) respectively, and magnitude of navicular motion was 23% higher during over-ground running compared to over-ground walking (p = 0.02). Compared to over-ground, magnitude of navicular motion on a treadmill was 21% and 16% greater during walking (p = 0.0004) and running (p = 0003) respectively. Additionally, maximal velocity of navicular motion during treadmill walking was 48% less than walking over-ground (p < 0.0001).

conclusionThe presence of footwear has minimal impact on navicular motion during walking. Differences in navicular motion between walking and running, and treadmill and over-ground gait highlight the importance of task specificity during gait analysis. Task specificity should be considered during design of future research trials and in clinical practice when measuring navicular motion.

Indexed as

Foot kinematicsIn-shoeNavicular dropNavicular motionStretch-sensor

Identifiers

PMID25741384
PMCPMC4349491
OpenAlexW2158108269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.