ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
The foot drawing method: reliability of measuring foot length and outward rotation in children with clubfoot.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Ponseti method is the gold standard for clubfoot treatment. However, relapse and residual gait deviations are common, and follow-up until 7 years of age is recommended. We evaluated the reliability of the foot drawing method, a new instrument for the follow-up of clubfoot. The method uses drawings of the foot in the neutral position and external rotation to measure foot length and outward rotation.
methodsNineteen children aged 2.5-7 years who were treated with the Ponseti method for congenital clubfoot were included. Two raters made the drawings twice (D1 and D2). Each rater measured foot length, foot rotation, and foot-tibial rotation independently (D1). Later, the raters repeated the measurements (D2). Interrater reliability was assessed using the D1 from each rater. Intrarater reliability was assessed using the measurements from each rater's D1 and D2. Bland-Altman plots were used to visualize the limits of agreement (LoA). The mean, 95% confidence interval, and one standard deviation of the differences in all measurements were calculated.
resultsThe mean differences between and within raters were: foot length < 1 mm, foot rotation < 1°, and foot-tibia rotation < 2°, which indicated no systematic differences. The LoA for foot length were: 4.5 mm and 5.9 mm between raters for D1, - 4.8 mm and 5.9 mm for rater 1 (D1-D2), and - 5.1 mm and 5 mm for rater 2 (D1-D2). The LoA for foot rotation: were - 12° and 10.6° between raters (D1), - 8.4° and 6.6° for rater 1 (D1-D2), and - 14° and 14.1° for rater 2 (D1-D2). The LoA for foot-tibia rotation were: - 17.8° and 14.3° between raters (D1), - 12° and 12.2° for rater 1 (D1-D2), and - 12.7° and 13.6° for rater 2 (D1- D2).
conclusionsThe absence of systematic differences between and within raters, and LoA observed indicate that the foot drawing method is applicable in clinical practice and research. However, the results of the foot and foot-tibia rotation analyses imply that caution is needed when interpreting changes in foot rotation in feet with higher degrees of rotation.
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.