ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2018
A minimal markerset for three-dimensional foot function assessment: measuring navicular drop and drift under dynamic conditions.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and correlation of weight-bearing cone beam CT and Foot Posture Index (FPI) for measurements of foot posture: a test-retest study.Skeletal radiology · 2023Article
- A Short-Term Evaluation of Foot Pronation Tendency in Healthy Recreational Runners.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Toward improved understanding of foot shape, foot posture, and foot biomechanics during running: A narrative review.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
- The rise of the longitudinal arch when sitting, standing, and walking: Contributions of the windlass mechanism.PloS one · 2021Article
- Prophylaxis of Pain and Fractures within Feet in the Course of Osteoporosis: The Issue of Diagnosing.Pain research & management · 2020Review
- An analysis of the foot in turnout using a dance specific 3D multi-segment foot model.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe validity of predicting foot pronation occurring mainly at the midfoot by surrogate measures from the rearfoot, like eversion excursion, is limited. The dynamic navicular mobility in terms of vertical navicular drop (
methodsThe minimal markerset uses markers at the lateral and medial caput of the 1
resultsIntra- and interday repeatability were 1.1 mm (
conclusionsInterday reliability was generally worse than intraday reliability primary due to day-to-day variations in movement patterns and the contribution of instrumental errors was below 23% for dynamic navicular drop but reached 57% for dynamic navicular drift. The minimal markerset allows to simply transfer the known concepts of navicular drop and drift from quasi-static clinical test conditions to functional tasks, which is recommended to more closely relate assessments to the functional behavior of the foot.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.