ReviewHeliyon2023
Current evidence regarding 2D ultrasonography monitoring of intrinsic foot muscle properties: A systematic review.
Review in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative ultrasonography of the foot muscles: a comprehensive perspective on reliability.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Relationship of Physical Factors to the Acceptability and Unacceptability of Short Foot Exercise: A Preliminary Study.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Differential effects of intrinsic- versus extrinsic-first corrective exercise programs on morphometric outcomes and navicular drop in pediatric flatfoot.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ultrasonography can discriminate between intrinsic and extrinsic foot muscle properties and has therefore gained considerable popularity as an indirect strength evaluation. However, an overview on the use of ultrasound for assessing intrinsic foot musculature (IFM) is currently lacking. Research question: What is the current evidence regarding (1) 2D ultrasonography protocols and its reliability? (2) Reference values for cross-sectional area and dorso-plantar thickness evaluation in asymptomatic and symptomatic persons? Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct this systematic review. Eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and EuropePMC) were searched up to November 1, 2021. Studies reporting quantitative 2D ultrasound findings of the intrinsic foot muscles with no limitation to sex, BMI, ethnicity or physical activity were included. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Results: Fifty-three studies were retained. Protocols showed an overall good to great reliability, suggesting limits of agreement between 8 and 30% of relative muscle size with minimal detectable changes varying from 0.10 to 0.29 cm Significance: We provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the literature regarding 2D ultrasonography of the IFM, making the available evidence more accessible to decision makers and researchers.
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.