ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
The association between foot morphological development and bone maturation in children: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAccurate assessment of pediatric foot development is essential for guiding clinical interventions. While chronological age (CA) is commonly used, it may not account for individual variations influenced by skeletal maturity. This study hypothesizes that bone age (BA) correlates more strongly with foot morphology than CA, particularly in predicting pediatric flatfoot progression.
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted with 141 healthy children aged 9-13 years. BA was assessed via hand-wrist X-rays (China 05 RUS-CHN method), and 3D foot parameters were measured using laser scanning. Participants were categorized into delayed, normal, and advanced maturity groups based on BA-CA differences. Correlation analyses and principal component analysis (PCA) were performed to evaluate associations between BA, CA, and foot morphology.
resultsBA exhibited stronger correlations with foot length (FL), outer ankle height (OAH), ball width (BW), and ball girth (BG) compared to CA. Stratified analyses revealed sex-specific differences, with BA-FL correlations in males (r = 0.722) surpassing females (r = 0.572). However, BA showed limited associations with arch morphology parameters (KY index [KYI] and arch height [AH]; |r| < 0.3). PCA further demonstrated that general foot size (PC1) correlated robustly with BA (r = 0.671), while arch morphology (PC2) remained independent of both BA and CA (r = -0.113).
conclusionBA is a superior predictor of foot size growth (e.g., FL, BW) compared to CA, particularly in males, but offers limited utility in assessing arch maturation. These findings suggest BA may enhance clinical foot size predictions, yet arch development likely depends on other factors beyond skeletal maturity. Integrating BA into pediatric flatfoot management requires careful consideration of its context-specific benefits and limitations.
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.