Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33661124›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Mobile Apps for Foot Measurement in Pedorthic Practice: Scoping Review.

Muhammad Ashad Kabir, Sheikh Sowmen Rahman, Mohammad Mainul Islam, Sayed Ahmed, Craig Laird

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. 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.

Muhammad Ashad KabirSchool of Computing and Mathematics, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6798-6535
Sheikh Sowmen RahmanDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Chittagong, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0003-2697-0366
Mohammad Mainul IslamSchool of Computing and Mathematics, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8308-4371
Sayed AhmedSchool of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9049-6825
Craig LairdPedi Wiz Digital Technology, Westmead, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5666-6168
Westmead Institute · AUCharles Sturt University · AUChittagong University of Engineering & Technology · BDVerizon (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the use of smartphones increases globally across various fields of research and technology, significant contributions to the sectors related to health, specifically foot health, can be observed. Numerous smartphone apps are now being used for providing accurate information about various foot-related properties. Corresponding to this abundance of foot scanning and measuring apps available in app stores, there is a need for evaluating these apps, as limited information regarding their evidence-based quality is available.

objectiveThe aim of this review was to assess the measurement techniques and essential software quality characteristics of mobile foot measurement apps, and to determine their potential as commercial tools used by foot care health professionals, to assist in measuring feet for custom shoes, and for individuals to enhance their awareness of foot health and hygiene to ultimately prevent foot-related problems.

methodsAn electronic search across Android and iOS app stores was performed between July and August 2020 to identify apps related to foot measurement and general foot health. The selected apps were rated by three independent raters, and all discrepancies were resolved by discussion among raters and other investigators. Based on previous work on app rating tools, a modified rating scale tool was devised to rate the selected apps. The internal consistency of the rating tool was tested with a group of three people who rated the selected apps over 2-3 weeks. This scale was then used to produce evaluation scores for the selected foot measurement apps and to assess the interrater reliability.

resultsEvaluation inferences showed that all apps failed to meet even half of the measurement-specific criteria required for the proper manufacturing of custom-made footwear. Only 23% (6/26) of the apps reportedly used external scanners or advanced algorithms to reconstruct 3D models of a user's foot that could possibly be used for ordering custom-made footwear (shoes, insoles/orthoses), and medical casts to fit irregular foot sizes and shapes. The apps had varying levels of performance and usability, although the overall measurement functionality was subpar with a mean of 1.93 out of 5. Apps linked to online shops and stores (shoe recommendation) were assessed to be more usable than other apps but lacked some features (eg, custom shoe sizes and shapes). Overall, the current apps available for foot measurement do not follow any specific guidelines for measurement purposes.

conclusionsMost commercial apps currently available in app stores are not viable for use as tools in assisting foot care health professionals or individuals to measure their feet for custom-made footwear. Current apps lack software quality characteristics and need significant improvements to facilitate proper measurement, enhance awareness of foot health, and induce motivation to prevent and cure foot-related problems. Guidelines similar to the essential criteria items introduced in this study need to be developed for future apps aimed at foot measurement for custom-made or individually fitted footwear and to create awareness of foot health.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAlgorithmsDelivery of Health CareHumansReproducibility of ResultsSmartphoneapps reviewcustom shoes makingdiabetic footfootcarefoot measurementfoot scanningmobile apppedorthics

Identifiers

PMID33661124
PMCPMC7974751
OpenAlexW3084325855

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.