Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28814975›Full record

SynthesisJournal of foot and ankle research2017

The typically developing paediatric foot: how flat should it be? A systematic review.

Hayley Uden, Rolf Scharfbillig, Ryan Causby

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Hayley UdenSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia.
Rolf ScharfbilligSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia.
Ryan CausbySchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAll typically developing children are born with flexible flat feet, progressively developing a medial longitudinal arch during the first decade of their lives. Whilst the child's foot is expected to be flat, there is currently no consensus as to

methodsThe PRISMA protocol was applied to compare all data currently published describing the typical development of the paediatric foot. The Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument (EAI) was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.

resultsThirty four epidemiological papers pertaining to the development of the paediatric foot were graphically compared. Sixteen different foot posture assessments were identified of which footprint based measures were the most reported outcome.

conclusionFirstly, the use of the term

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentChildFlatfootFootHumansChildrenFlat footFoot developmentFoot posturePaediatric footSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28814975
PMCPMC5558233

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.