Observational studySao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Intra and intersession repeatability and reliability of dynamic parameters in pressure platform assessments on subjects with simulated leg length discrepancy. A cross-sectional research.
Observational study in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and Validity of Plantar Pressures and the Modified ICPBL Test vs. Telemetry for Diagnosing Anatomical Discrepancies: A Pilot Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Dynamic gait phase alterations and spatiotemporal stance characteristics in bilateral pes cavus: A case-control study.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Wrist Joint Restriction: Impact on Foot Pressure, Center of Gravity, and the Role of the Dominant Hand.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Effect of Simulated Leg-Length Discrepancy on the Dynamic Parameters of the Feet during Gait-Cross-Sectional Research.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeg length discrepancy (LLD) may play a key role in exercise biomechanics. Although the Podoprint platform has been used in dynamic pressure studies, there are no data regarding the reliability and repeatability of dynamic measurements under simulated LLD conditions.
objectivesTo determine the intra and intersession repeatability and reliability of dynamic parameters of the Podoprint pressure platform under simulated LLD conditions. DESIGN AND
settingObservational cross-sectional study at a public university.
methodsThirty-seven healthy volunteers participated in this study. LLD was simulated using ethyl vinyl acetate plantar lifts with heights of 5 mm, 10 mm, 15 mm and 20 mm located under the right shoe of each volunteer. The procedure was performed to capture the dynamic parameters of each participant under five different simulated LLD conditions. Stance time, mean pressure and peak pressure measurements were registered in three trials for each foot and each LLD level. Data were collected during two separate testing sessions, in order to establish intrasession and intersession reliability.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intrasession reliability ranged from 0.775 to 0.983 in the first session and from 0.860 to 0.985 in the second session. The ICCs for intersession reliability ranged from 0.909 to 0.990. Bland-Altman plots showed absence of systematic measurement errors.
conclusionsThe results from this study indicate that the Podoprint platform is a reliable system for assessing dynamic parameters under simulated LLD conditions. Future studies should evaluate plantar pressures under LLD conditions, in association with exercise, biomechanics and musculoskeletal disorders.
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.