ArticleBMJ open2021
Defining and grouping children's therapeutic footwear and criteria for their prescription: an international expert Delphi consensus study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of the CHILD-SHOE Reporting Checklist: A Scoping Review and Modified Delphi Study to Support Reporting in Children's Footwear Research.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
- Comment on Alfageme-Garcia et al. Respectful Children's Shoes: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Respectful Children's Shoes: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evidence-based rehabilitation medicine: definition, foundation, practice and development.Medical review (2021) · 2024Review
- Parents, health professionals and footwear stakeholders' beliefs on the importance of different features of young children's footwear: a qualitative study.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2022Article
- Young children's footwear taxonomy: An international Delphi survey of parents, health and footwear industry professionals.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to achieve an expert consensus on how to define and group footwear interventions for children, with a further focus on the design characteristics and prescription of off-the-shelf stability footwear for children with mobility impairment.
settingA group of multinational professionals, from clinicians to those involved in the footwear industry, were recruited to ensure a spectrum of opinions.
participantsThirty panellists were contacted, of which 24 consented to participate and six withdrew before round 1, a further two withdrew after round 1. Sixteen panellists completed the consensus exercise. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A Delphi consensus method was employed with round 1 split into three sections: (1) terms and definitions, (2) specifics of off-the-shelf stability footwear design and (3) criteria for clinical prescription of off-the-shelf stability footwear. The panel was asked to rate their level of agreement with statements and to provide further insights through open-ended questions. The opinions of the experts were analysed to assess consensus set at 75% agreement or to modify or form new statements presented through the subsequent two rounds.
resultsTherapeutic footwear was the agreed term to represent children's footwear interventions, with grouping and subgrouping of therapeutic footwear being dependent on their intended clinical outcomes (accommodative, corrective or functional). Both the heel counter and topline as well as the stiffness and width of the sole were identified as potentially influencing mediolateral stability in children's gait. A consensus was achieved in the prescription criteria and outcome measures for off-the-shelf stability therapeutic footwear for cerebral palsy, mobile symptomatic pes planus, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spina bifida and Down's syndrome.
conclusionsThrough a structured synthesis of expert opinion, this study has established a standardisation of terminology and groupings along with prescription criteria for the first time. Reported findings have implications for communication between stakeholders, evidence-based clinical intervention and standardised outcome measures to assess effectiveness.
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.