Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35679289›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Young children's footwear taxonomy: An international Delphi survey of parents, health and footwear industry professionals.

Cylie M Williams, Stewart C Morrison, Kade Paterson, Katherine Gobbi, Sam Burton, Matthew Hill, Emma Harber, Helen Banwell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Cylie M WilliamsSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0223-9141
Stewart C MorrisonSchool of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College, London, United Kingdom.
Kade PatersonCentre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Katherine GobbiParent (Consumer Representative), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sam BurtonBobux International, Newmarket, Auckland, New Zealand.
Matthew HillCentre for Biomechanics and Rehabilitation Technologies, Staffordshire University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0482-167X
Emma HarberParent (Consumer Representative), Church Stretton, Shropshire, United Kingdom.
Helen BanwellAllied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere is little consistency between commercial grade footwear brands for determining shoe sizing, and no universally accepted descriptors of common types or features of footwear. The primary aim of this research was to develop a footwear taxonomy about the agreed types of footwear commonly worn by children under the age of six. Secondary aims were to gain consensus of the common footwear features, when different types of footwear would be commonly worn, common terms for key footwear parts, and how movement at some of these footwear parts should be described. MATERIALS AND

methodsOpinions were collected through a three-round modified Delphi international online survey from parents, health professionals, researchers, and footwear industry professionals. The first survey displayed generic pictures about different footwear types and asked participants to provide a grouping term, when the footwear would be worn (for what type of activity) and any grouping features. The second and third rounds presented consensus and gathered agreement on statements.

resultsThere were 121 participants who provided detailed feedback to open-ended questions. The final round resulted in consensus and agreement on the names of 14 different footwear types, when they are commonly worn and their common features. Participants also reached consensus and agreement on the terms heel counter to describe the back part of footwear and fixtures as the collective term for features allowing footwear adjustability and fastening. They also agreed on terms to quantify the flexibility at footwear sole (bend or twist) or the heel counter.

conclusionThis first taxonomy of children's footwear represents consensus amongst different stakeholders and is an important step in promoting consistency within footwear research. One shoe does not fit all purposes, and the recommendations from this work help to inform the next steps towards ensuring greater transparency and commonality with footwear recommendations.

Indexed as

ParentsShoesChildChild, PreschoolConsensusDelphi TechniqueHealth PersonnelHumans

Identifiers

PMID35679289
PMCPMC9182301

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.