Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34706752›Full record

ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2021

Clinical foot measurements as a proxy for plantar pressure testing in people with diabetes.

Vivienne H Chuter, Martin J Spink, Michael David, Sean Lanting, Angela Searle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Development and evaluation of a novel 3D in-shoe plantar strain measurement system: STAMPS3D.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vivienne H ChuterSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, PO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia. Vivienne.chuter@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4793-5340
Martin J SpinkSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, PO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia.
Michael DavidSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Sean LantingSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, PO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia.
Angela SearleSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, PO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW, 2258, Australia.
Hunter Water · AUGriffith University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh plantar pressures are associated with increased foot ulcer risk in people with diabetes. Identification of high plantar pressures in people with diabetes is clinically challenging due to time and cost constraints of plantar pressure testing. Factors affecting foot biomechanics, including reduced joint range of motion and foot deformity, are implicated in the development of high plantar pressures and may provide a method to clinically identify those at risk of pressure related complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the contribution of joint range of motion and foot deformity measures on plantar pressures in a community dwelling group with diabetes.

methodsBarefoot (Tekscan HR Mat™) and in-shoe (Novel Pedar-X®) plantar pressure variables, weight bearing ankle dorsiflexion, hallux range of motion, lesser toe deformities and hallux abductus (HAV) scale were assessed in 136 adults with diabetes (52.2% male; mean age 68.4 years). Multivariate multiple linear regression was used to assess the effect of the four biomechanical factors plus neuropathy and body mass index on plantar pressure variables. Non-parametric bootstrapping was employed to determine the difference in plantar pressure variables for participants with two or more foot biomechanical pathologies compared to those with less than two pathologies.

resultsAlmost one third (32%) of the cohort had two or more foot biomechanical pathologies. Participants with two or more foot biomechanical pathologies displayed significant increases in all barefoot plantar pressure regions (except forefoot), compared to those with less than two pathologies. No significant changes were found for the in-shoe plantar pressure variables. The regression model explains between 9.9% (95%CI: 8.4 to 11.4%) and 29.6% (95% CI: 28.2 to 31%), and between 2.5% (1.0 to 4.0%) and 43.8% (95% CI: 42.5-44.9%), of the variance in the barefoot and in-shoe plantar pressure variables respectively.

conclusionsParticipants presenting with two or more factors affecting foot biomechanics displayed higher peak pressures and pressure time integrals in all foot regions compared to those with less than two factors. The tests used in this study could help clinicians detect elevated plantar pressures in people with diabetes and present an opportunity for early preventative interventions.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootFoot UlcerAdultAgedFemaleFootHumansMalePressureRange of Motion, ArticularWalkingBiomechanicalDiabetesPlantar pressure

Identifiers

PMID34706752
PMCPMC8549160
OpenAlexW3210682604

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.