A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Dynamic footprint measurement collection technique and intrarater reliability: ink mat, paper pedography, and electronic pedography. | LitMetric

Dynamic footprint measurement collection technique and intrarater reliability: ink mat, paper pedography, and electronic pedography.

J Am Podiatr Med Assoc

Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Center for Lower Extremity Ambulatory Research, North Chicago, IL, USA.

Published: August 2012

Background: Identifying the variability of footprint measurement collection techniques and the reliability of footprint measurements would assist with appropriate clinical foot posture appraisal. We sought to identify relationships between these measures in a healthy population.

Methods: On 30 healthy participants, midgait dynamic footprint measurements were collected using an ink mat, paper pedography, and electronic pedography. The footprints were then digitized, and the following footprint indices were calculated with photo digital planimetry software: footprint index, arch index, truncated arch index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, and Staheli Index. Differences between techniques were identified with repeated-measures analysis of variance with post hoc test of Scheffe. In addition, to assess practical similarities between the different methods, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. To assess intrarater reliability, footprint indices were calculated twice on 10 randomly selected ink mat footprint measurements, and the ICC was calculated.

Results: Dynamic footprint measurements collected with an ink mat significantly differed from those collected with paper pedography (ICC, 0.85-0.96) and electronic pedography (ICC, 0.29-0.79), regardless of the practical similarities noted with ICC values (P = .00). Intrarater reliability for dynamic ink mat footprint measurements was high for the footprint index, arch index, truncated arch index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, and Staheli Index (ICC, 0.74-0.99).

Conclusions: Footprint measurements collected with various techniques demonstrate differences. Interchangeable use of exact values without adjustment is not advised. Intrarater reliability of a single method (ink mat) was found to be high.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.7547/1020130DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ink mat
24
footprint measurements
24
intrarater reliability
16
dynamic footprint
12
paper pedography
12
electronic pedography
12
measurements collected
12
footprint
11
footprint measurement
8
measurement collection
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!