ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Great Toe Strength and Direct Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review for Clinical Applications.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Great toe strength (GTS) is critical for gait, balance, and mobility, yet reliable assessment methods are lacking. This scoping review aims to evaluate and synthesize the direct methods of GTS assessment and their corresponding measurement protocols to guide clinical and research applications. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, five databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. All publications on or before 16 December 2024 were included in this review. Studies were included if they quantified isolated great toe strength in human participants using direct measurement tools with non-normalized force outcomes, while exclusion criteria included non-human models, indirect assessments (e.g., electromyography), and multi-digit or dynamic tasks. Following the initial screening of the results, the information from the included articles were extracted into Excel for analyses and synthesis. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full texts using Covidence. Conflicts were resolved via consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. We identified 55 studies involving 2821 participants that met our inclusion criteria. Four types of direct GTS assessment methods were identified: dynamometry (56%), manual muscle testing (11%), force transducers (13%), and load cells/strain gauges (18%). Dynamometry was the most common but showed variable reliability due to non-standardized protocols. Healthy individuals exhibited higher GTS (95.01 N) than those with conditions like hallux injury (6.1 N), though plantar fasciitis/plantar heel pain populations showed unexpectedly high GTS (133.27 N). No clear age-related GTS trend emerged, likely due to methodological variability. Less than 11% of studies measured extension strength, highlighting a critical research gap. This review emphasizes the need for standardized protocols to enhance GTS assessment reliability and clinical utility.
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.