Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37106385›Full record

ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2023

Methodological and statistical approaches for the assessment of foot shape using three-dimensional foot scanning: a scoping review.

Jamie J Allan, Shannon E Munteanu, Daniel R Bonanno, Andrew K Buldt, Simon Choppin, Alice Bullas, Natalie Pearce, Hylton B Menz

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Is palpation essential in the digital era of orthotic designing?Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jamie J AllanDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia. j.allan@latrobe.edu.au.
Shannon E MunteanuDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Daniel R BonannoDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Andrew K BuldtDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Simon ChoppinAdvanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S9 3TU, UK.
Alice BullasAdvanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, S9 3TU, UK.
Natalie PearceLa Trobe Library, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Hylton B MenzDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.
La Trobe University · AUSheffield Hallam University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to: (i) review and provide a narrative synthesis of three-dimensional (3D) foot surface scanning methodological and statistical analysis protocols, and (ii) develop a set of recommendations for standardising the reporting of 3D foot scanning approaches.

methodsA systematic search of the SCOPUS, ProQuest, and Web of Science databases were conducted to identify papers reporting 3D foot scanning protocols and analysis techniques. To be included, studies were required to be published in English, have more than ten participants, and involve the use of static 3D surface scans of the foot. Papers were excluded if they reported two-dimensional footprints only, 3D scans that did not include the medial arch, dynamic scans, or derived foot data from a full body scan.

resultsThe search yielded 78 relevant studies from 17 different countries. The available evidence showed a large variation in scanning protocols. The subcategories displaying the most variation included scanner specifications (model, type, accuracy, resolution, capture duration), scanning conditions (markers, weightbearing, number of scans), foot measurements and definitions used, and statistical analysis approaches. A 16-item checklist was developed to improve the consistency of reporting of future 3D scanning studies.

conclusion3D foot scanning methodological and statistical analysis protocol consistency and reporting has been lacking in the literature to date. Improved reporting of the included subcategories could assist in data pooling and facilitate collaboration between researchers. As a result, larger sample sizes and diversification of population groups could be obtained to vastly improve the quantification of foot shape and inform the development of orthotic and footwear interventions and products.

Indexed as

FootHumansWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

PMID37106385
PMCPMC10134589
OpenAlexW4367320584

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.