ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2024
The development of recommendations for the assessment and management of sesamoiditis by podiatrists: A Delphi and content validity study.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conservative Treatment of Sesamoiditis: A Systematic Literature Review with Individual-Level Pooled Data Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSesamoiditis is a common, and often painful, musculoskeletal pathology frequently encountered by podiatrists. However, there are currently no recommendations to guide podiatrists in the assessment and management of people with sesamoiditis. The aim of this study was to develop consensus-driven clinical recommendations on the assessment and management of people with sesamoiditis.
methodsA four-round online Delphi survey was conducted with a panel of New Zealand and Australian podiatrists. In the first round, panellists answered open-ended questions that were used to create statements. In round two, the panellists scored the statements from 1 to 9 (1 = not at all important, 9 = absolutely essential). Consensus was defined using the RAND/University of California Los Angles Disagreement Index. Panellists were asked to reconsider statements that did not achieve consensus in round three. In the final round, content validity and acceptability of the statements for inclusion in clinical recommendations were determined using content validity ratios and the Content Validity Index (CVI).
resultsEighteen panellists completed round one with 16 (89%) completing all four rounds. A total of 118 statements were generated following round one. Following rounds two and three, 78 statements were accepted by panellists as being important, with 62 statements achieving sufficient content validity for inclusion in clinical recommendations. The CVI for these 62 statements was 0.58. These recommendations provide guidance on subjective assessment (pain characteristics/symptomology, activity/sports/training history and medical history) objective assessment (establishing a diagnosis, identifying contributing biomechanical factors, footwear/orthoses, ruling out differential diagnoses) and management (temporary padding/strapping, education, footwear, foot orthoses and when to consider referral).
conclusionThis consensus exercise has provided a set of consensus-based recommendations for the assessment and management of people with sesamoiditis. In the current absence of research-based evidence in this area, these recommendations are intended to support clinicians. The recommendations may also serve as a basis for future clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of conservative interventions for people with sesamoiditis.
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.