Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34983473›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

The discrepancy between radiographically-assessed and self-recognized hallux valgus in a large population-based cohort.

Takumi Matsumoto, Junya Higuchi, Yuji Maenohara, Song Ho Chang, Toshiko Iidaka, Chiaki Horii, Hiroyuki Oka, Shigeyuki Muraki, Hiroshi Hashizume, Hiroshi Yamada and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Takumi MatsumotoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. matumot-tky@umin.ac.jp.
Junya HiguchiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Yuji MaenoharaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Song Ho ChangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Toshiko IidakaDepartment of Preventive Medicine for Locomotive Organ Disorders, 22nd Century Medical & Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Chiaki HoriiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Hiroyuki OkaDepartment of Medical Research and Management for Musculoskeletal Pain, 22nd Century Medical & Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigeyuki MurakiDepartment of Preventive Medicine for Locomotive Organ Disorders, 22nd Century Medical & Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi HashizumeSchool of Health and Nursing Science, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.
Hiroshi YamadaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.
Munehito YoshidaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.
Kozo NakamuraTowa Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Sakae TanakaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Noriko YoshimuraDepartment of Preventive Medicine for Locomotive Organ Disorders, 22nd Century Medical & Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
The University of Tokyo · JPWakayama Medical University · JPTowa Pharmaceutical (Japan) · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a paucity of literature revealing the discrepancy between self-recognition about hallux valgus (HV) and radiographically-evaluated foot configuration. Knowing this discrepancy will help to make a comparative review of the findings of previous literatures about epidemiological studies about the prevalence of HV. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there a discrepancy between radiographically-assessed and self-recognized HV in the general population? (2) What factors affect the self-recognition of HV in the general population?

methodsThe fifth survey of the Research on Osteoarthritis/Osteoporosis against Disability study involved 1996 participants who had undergone anterior-posterior radiography of bilateral feet and answered a simple dichotomous questionnaire on self-recognition of HV. Measurements of the HV angle (HVA), interphalangeal angle of the hallux (IPA), and intermetatarsal angle between 1st and 2nd metatarsals (IMA) were performed using radiographs. Radiographic diagnosis of HV was done using the definition of hallux valgus angle of 20° or more. After univariate comparison of the participant backgrounds and radiographic measurements between participants with or without self-recognition of HV, multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted in order to reveal independent factors affecting self-recognition.

resultsSignificant difference was found between the prevalence of radiographically-assessed and self-recognized HV (29.8% vs. 16.5%, p <  0.0001). The prevalence of self-recognized HV increased with the progression of HV severity from a single-digit percentage (normal grade, HVA < 20°) up to 100% (severe grade, HVA ≥ 40°). A multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that HVA, IMA, and female sex were independent positive factors for self-recognition of HV (HVA [per 1° increase]: OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.15-1.20; p <  0.0001; IMA [per 1° increase]: OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.20; p <  0.0001; and female sex [vs. male sex]: OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 2.35-5.18; p <  0.0001).

conclusionsThere was a significant discrepancy between radiographically-assessed and self-recognized HV which narrowed with the progressing severity of HV. HVA, IMA, and female sex were independent positive factors for self-recognition of HV. Attention needs to be paid to potentially lowered prevalence of HV in epidemiological studies using self-reporting based on self-recognition.

Indexed as

BunionHalluxHallux ValgusMetatarsal BonesFemaleFootHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesHallux valgusHallux valgus interphalangeusPrevalenceRadiographSelf-recognition

Identifiers

PMID34983473
PMCPMC8729003
OpenAlexW4226174557

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.