Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36983616›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2023

How to Measure Foot Self-Care? A Methodological Review of Instruments.

Jenni Sipilä, Anne-Marie Mäkelä, Sasu Hyytiä, Minna Stolt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Jenni SipiläDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, 20520 Turku, Finland.
Anne-Marie MäkeläDepartment of Nursing Science, Turku University Hospital, University of Turku, 20520 Turku, Finland.
Sasu HyytiäPihlajalinna Pikku Huopalahti, 00300 Helsinki, Finland.
Minna StoltDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, 20520 Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1845-9800

Funding

Turku University Hospital 13240
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Foot self-care is an important element of caring for and promoting foot health. However, little is known about the validity and reliability of existing foot self-care instruments. The purpose of this review is to describe and analyze the focus, content, and psychometric evidence of existing instruments for measuring foot self-care. A methodological review of three international scientific databases-Medline (PubMed), CINAHL (Ebsco), and Embase-was conducted in May 2022. The search produced 3520 hits, of which 53 studies were included in the final analysis based on a two-phase selection process. A total of 31 instruments were identified, of which six were observed to have been used more than once. Subsequently, the methodological quality of these six instruments was evaluated. It is noted that although a considerable variety of instruments are used in measuring foot self-care, only a small proportion are used consistently. In general, the psychometric testing instruments seem to primarily focus on analyzing content validity and homogeneity. In the future, comprehensive testing of instrument psychometrics could enhance the cumulative evidence of the methodological quality of these instruments. Furthermore, researchers and clinicians can use the information in this review to make informed choices when selecting an instrument for their purposes.

Indexed as

footfoot self-careinstrumentmeasurementmethodological review

Identifiers

PMID36983616
PMCPMC10052648

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.