Reliability and normative values of the foot line test: a technique to assess foot posture

Reliability and correlation of weight-bearing cone beam CT and Foot Posture Index (FPI) for measurements of foot posture: a test-retest study

OBJECTIVE

To assess test-retest reliability and correlation of weight-bearing (WB) and non-weight-bearing (NWB) cone beam CT (CBCT) foot measurements and Foot Posture Index (FPI) MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty healthy participants (age 43.11±11.36, 15 males, 5 females) were CBCT-scanned in February 2019 on two separate days on one foot in both WB and NWB positions. Three radiology observers measured the navicular bone position. Plantar (ΔNAVplantar) and medial navicular displacements (ΔNAVmedial) were calculated as a measure of foot posture changes under loading. FPI was assessed by two rheumatologists on the same two days. FPI is a clinical measurement of foot posture with 3 rearfoot and 3 midfoot/forefoot scores. Test-retest reproducibility was determined for all measurements. CBCT was correlated to FPI total and subscores.

RESULTS

Intra- and interobserver reliabilities for navicular position and FPI were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) .875-.997). In particular, intraobserver (ICC .0.967-1.000) and interobserver reliabilities (ICC .946-.997) were found for CBCT navicular height and medial position. Interobserver reliability of ΔNAVplantar was excellent (ICC .926 (.812; .971); MDC 2.22), whereas the ΔNAVmedial was fair-good (ICC .452 (.385; .783); MDC 2.42 mm). Using all observers' measurements, we could calculate mean ΔNAVplantar (4.25±2.08 mm) and ΔNAVmedial (1.55±0.83 mm). We demonstrated a small day-day difference in ΔNAVplantar (0.64 ±1.13mm; p<.05), but not for ΔNAVmedial (0.04 ±1.13mm; p=n.s.). Correlation of WBCT (WB navicular height - ΔNAVmedial) with total clinical FPI scores and FPI subscores, respectively, showed high correlation (ρ: -.706; ρ: -.721).

CONCLUSION

CBCT and FPI are reliable measurements of foot posture, with a high correlation between the two measurements.

Non-radiographic validity and reliability measures for assessing foot types: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Foot type classification is well recognized in clinical practice and orthopedic literature, a universally accepted classification or standardized measures to determine foot types are lacking. The objective of this study was to identify which non-radiographic assessment methods are considered valid and/or reliable for the classification of foot types.

METHOD

A systematic database search was performed. Only cross-sectional studies that performed reliability and/or validity analysis of non-radiographic methods were included. To evaluate the risk of bias, the Critical Appraisal Tool (CAT) was used to evaluate the measurement properties of objective clinical methods.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included. The results of reliability and validity, in general, demonstrated high scores, but, inconsistencies were related to the variability of the measurements, heterogeneity of the methods used to determine reliability and validity, and lack of parameters for classifying foot types, which resulted in few elements to determine which method of foot type evaluation is valid and reliable.

CONCLUSION

Given the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and CAT results and the presence of normative values, the static measurements of the "Arch Height Index", "Foot Posture Index", and "Staheli Arch Index" can be suggested to classify foot types.

The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL)

Background

The aim of this project was to investigate the reliability of a new 11-item quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). The tool was tested on studies reporting the reliability of any physical examination procedure. The reliability of physical examination is a challenging area to study given the complex testing procedures, the range of tests, and lack of procedural standardisation.

Methods

Three reviewers used QAREL to independently rate 29 articles, comprising 30 studies, published during 2007. The articles were identified from a search of relevant databases using the following string: “Reproducibility of results (MeSH) OR reliability (t.w.) AND Physical examination (MeSH) OR physical examination (t.w.).” A total of 415 articles were retrieved and screened for inclusion. The reviewers undertook an independent trial assessment prior to data collection, followed by a general discussion about how to score each item. At no time did the reviewers discuss individual papers. Reliability was assessed for each item using multi-rater kappa (κ).

Results

Multi-rater reliability estimates ranged from κ = 0.27 to 0.92 across all items. Six items were recorded with good reliability (κ > 0.60), three with moderate reliability (κ = 0.41 - 0.60), and two with fair reliability (κ = 0.21 - 0.40). Raters found it difficult to agree about the spectrum of patients included in a study (Item 1) and the correct application and interpretation of the test (Item 10).

Conclusions

In this study, we found that QAREL was a reliable assessment tool for studies of diagnostic reliability when raters agreed upon criteria for the interpretation of each item. Nine out of 11 items had good or moderate reliability, and two items achieved fair reliability. The heterogeneity in the tests included in this study may have resulted in an underestimation of the reliability of these two items. We discuss these and other factors that could affect our results and make recommendations for the use of QAREL.

Reliability and normative values for the foot mobility magnitude: a composite measure of vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot

BACKGROUND

A study was conducted to determine the reliability and minimal detectable change for a new composite measure of the vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot called the foot mobility magnitude.

METHODS

Three hundred and forty-five healthy participants volunteered to take part in the study. The change in dorsal arch height between weight bearing and non-weight bearing as well as the change in midfoot width between weight bearing and non-weight bearing were measured at 50% of total foot length and used to calculate the foot mobility magnitude. The reliability and minimal detectable change for the measurements were then determined based on the assessment of the measurements by three raters with different levels of clinical experience.

RESULTS

The change in dorsal arch height between weight bearing and non-weight bearing, midfoot width between weight bearing and non-weight bearing, and the foot mobility magnitude were shown to have high levels of intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Normative data are provided for the left and right feet of both the female (n = 211) and male (n = 134) subjects.

CONCLUSION

While the measurements of navicular drop and drift have been used as a clinical method to assess both the vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot, poor to fair levels of inter-rater reliability have been reported. The results of the current study suggest that the foot mobility magnitude provides the clinician and researcher with a highly reliable measure of vertical and medial-lateral midfoot mobility.