ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2024
The use of a novel toe-thumb pressure index for assessing arterial status in the lower limb. A reliability and 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
aimsThis study explored the reliability, validity and perceived comfort of a novel thumb pressure measure and calculation of a toe-thumb index to identify their suitability as an adjunct or alternatives to ankle-brachial and toe-brachial indices. METHODS AND
resultsRepeated manual thumb and toe systolic blood pressures were conducted using two raters, over two time points, on 34 healthy participants. Concurrent automated toe, thumb and brachial systolic blood pressures as well as comfort ratings for these measures (using a 10 mm visual analogue scale) were captured once by a research assistant. Automated thumb and brachial measures showed fair correlation (ρ = 0.36, p = 0.03) and a toe-thumb index and toe-brachial index good correlation (ρ = 0.62, p < 0.01). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) identified moderate intra-rater reliability for manual thumb pressures for Rater 1 and 2 (ICC 0.57, 95% CI [0.14, 0.79] and ICC 0.74, 95% CI [0.49, 0.87], respectively), while inter-rater reliability was poor (ICC = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.47]). Concurrent validity comparing manual and automated measures for thumb pressure was also poor (ICC -0.05, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.72] and ICC 0.42, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.72] Rater 1 and 2 respectively). Thumb measures were significantly more comfortable than brachial measures (5 mm, p < 0.00).
conclusionThumb systolic pressures are correlated with brachial systolic pressures, with reasonable intra-rater reliability, however, correlation is only fair and measurement error wider than clinically acceptable. Furthermore, manual measures are poorly correlated with automated units. Consequently, caution is required in applying these techniques. As thumb measures were perceived as significantly more comfortable than brachial measures and have an advantage where brachial pressures cannot, or should not, be obtained, further evaluation is warranted.
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.