Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32879356›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2020

Four meta-analyses across 164 studies on atypical footedness prevalence and its relation to handedness.

Julian Packheiser, Judith Schmitz, Gesa Berretz, David P Carey, Silvia Paracchini, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou, Sebastian Ocklenburg

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hand Preference in Stuttering: Meta-Analyses.Neuropsychology review · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. International Survey Exploring Rider-Perceived Sidedness of the Horse.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Julian PackheiserInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Biopsychology, Department of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44780, Bochum, Germany. julian.packheiser@rub.de.
Judith SchmitzSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Gesa BerretzInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Biopsychology, Department of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44780, Bochum, Germany.
David P CareyPerception, Action and Memory Research Group, School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Silvia ParacchiniSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Marietta Papadatou-PastouSchool of Education, Department of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Sebastian OcklenburgInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Biopsychology, Department of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44780, Bochum, Germany.
Ruhr University Bochum · DEUniversity of St Andrews · GBBangor University · GBNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GR

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800523Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_15018Medical Research Council MC_PC_19009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human lateral preferences, such as handedness and footedness, have interested researchers for decades due to their pronounced asymmetries at the population level. While there are good estimates on the prevalence of handedness in the population, there is no large-scale estimation on the prevalence of footedness. Furthermore, the relationship between footedness and handedness still remains elusive. Here, we conducted meta-analyses with four different classification systems for footedness on 145,135 individuals across 164 studies including new data from the ALSPAC cohort. The study aimed to determine a reliable point estimate of footedness, to study the association between footedness and handedness, and to investigate moderating factors influencing footedness. We showed that the prevalence of atypical footedness ranges between 12.10% using the most conservative criterion of left-footedness to 23.7% including all left- and mixed-footers as a single non-right category. As many as 60.1% of left-handers were left-footed whereas only 3.2% of right-handers were left-footed. Males were 4.1% more often non-right-footed compared to females. Individuals with psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders exhibited a higher prevalence of non-right-footedness. Furthermore, the presence of mixed-footedness was higher in children compared to adults and left-footedness was increased in athletes compared to the general population. Finally, we showed that footedness is only marginally influenced by cultural and social factors, which play a crucial role in the determination of handedness. Overall, this study provides new and useful reference data for laterality research. Furthermore, the data suggest that footedness is a valuable phenotype for the study of lateral motor biases, its underlying genetics and neurodevelopment.

Indexed as

AdolescentBehaviorChildChild, PreschoolFemaleFootFunctional LateralityHandHealthy VolunteersHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesMalePhenotype

Identifiers

PMID32879356
PMCPMC7468297
OpenAlexW3081835484

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.