A Method-Comparison Study Highlighting the Disparity between Osseous- and Skin-Based Measures of Foot Mobility

Author:

Wearing Scott C.1,Jones Brendan2,Horstmann Thomas1,Robertson Aaron3

Affiliation:

1. Conservative and Rehabilitative Orthopaedics, Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, GERMANY

2. Brisbane Private Imaging and Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Radiology Department, Brisbane, AUSTRALIA

3. School of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, AUSTRALIA

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose This study examined the validity of standard clinical measures of arch height mobility (AHM), midfoot width mobility (MWM) and foot mobility magnitude (FMM) relative to skin-based and osseous measures derived from radiographs. Methods Skin-based clinical indices of foot mobility were calculated from standard, caliper-based measures of foot length, midfoot width and dorsal arch height of the left limb of 20 healthy participants (8-71 years) during nonweightbearing and weightbearing. Skin-based radiographic and osseous indices were derived from concurrent antero-posterior and lateral radiographs. Agreement between skin-based clinical and skin-based radiographic measures of foot mobility with those of osseous measures were investigated using the Bland and Altman approach. Results Foot mobility indices derived from clinical measures were significantly higher (20%-50%) than skin-based radiographic measures (P < .01), which were, in turn, significantly higher (200%-250%) than osseous measures (P < .01). Clinical measures demonstrated significant levels of proportional bias compared to radiographic measures of foot mobility (P < .01). The contribution of osseous movement to skin-based clinical measures of mobility was highly variable between individuals, ranging between 19-81% for AHM, 4-87% for MWM and 14-75% for FMM. The limits of tolerance for clinical measures of foot mobility, ranged from ±3.2 mm for MWM to ±6.6 mm for measures of FMM. The limits of tolerance for skin-based clinical and skin-based radiographic measures were generally larger than osseous movement with weightbearing. Conclusions Skin-based measures of foot mobility, whether clinical or radiographic methods, are not interchangeable and are poor indicators of osseous mobility. Although further research regarding the utility of osseous measures is warranted, these findings strongly caution against the use of skin-based clinical measures of foot mobility in clinical and research settings.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3