SynthesisForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025
Forensic podiatry in the identification of gait by CCTV. A systematic review.
Synthesis in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeForensic podiatry is the application of the professional knowledge of this specialist in the legal field as an expert. Forensic podiatrists collaborate in the forensic identification of evidence that, from the foot, can help clarify what happened at a crime or crime scene. At the scene of the crime, footprints, shoe prints, and traces are evidence that are present even though they might not be immediately visible. The forensic analysis of a suspect's gait is evidence sometimes available and has as an important characteristic: it is an individualistic parameter and even a biometric factor. This gait analysis can be very relevant as evidence in the context of a crime. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the reliability of gait forensics with respect to the use of angular measurements compared to observational analysis of morphological characteristics to identify the current gold standard.
methodsA systematic review of the scientific literature available in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Dialnet has been carried out. Nine observational studies were selected after applying the eligibility criteria.
resultsThe selected studies were analytical and provided, among other information, numerical data on the reliability, reproducibility, and validity of the analysis methods in question. There is not enough conclusive scientific evidence on the reliability of the method of analysis using angular measurements, as there is controversy between authors.
conclusionForensic gait analysis based on angular measurements shows reliability limitations due to intra-individual factors (mood, clothing), requiring further empirical evidence; in contrast, the observational method analyzing of unique gait characteristics emerges as the most reliable method, offering high accuracy, validity, and reproducibility when conducted by trained biomechanical experts.
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.