ReviewTranslational sports medicine2026
Foot and Ankle Biomechanics in Individuals With Patellofemoral Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Translational sports medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Foot and Ankle Biomechanics in Individuals With Patellofemoral Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Translational sports medicine · 2026Review
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
Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is a common, multifactorial musculoskeletal condition that primarily affects young and physically active adults. Although previous studies have emphasized proximal and local impairments, the contribution of distal joint biomechanics remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether biomechanical and clinical parameters of the foot and ankle differ between individuals with and without PFP. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, SciELO, and SPORTDiscus. Studies comparing adults with and without PFP in distal joint outcomes, including muscle strength, kinematics, range of motion (ROM), plantar pressure, and clinical measures (e.g., navicular drop and foot mobility), were included. Methodological quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using Hedges' g, and the level of evidence for each outcome was classified according to predefined criteria based on methodological quality, statistical significance, and between-study heterogeneity. Forty-two studies were included in the systematic review, and 38 were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 2314 participants (PFP:
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.