Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Footprint analysis of flatfoot in preschool-aged children.
Chen KC, Yeh CJ, Kuo JF, Hsieh CL, Yang SF, Wang CH. Eur J Pediatr. 2011 May;170(5):611-7
Quote:
Our aim in this study was to analyze the footprint measurements of flatfoot in a population of preschool-aged children. Three footprint measurements, the Clarke's angle (CA), Chippaux-Smirak index (CSI), and Staheli arch index (AI), were used for comparison with clinical diagnosis. A total of 2,638 static footprints of children aged from 3 to 6 years were recorded. The clinical diagnosis as a gold standard compared with the results of the CA, CSI, and AI and displayed in a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. In order to illustrate the diagnostic accuracy in clinical settings, their likelihood ratios were calculated given their cutoff points, and their pretest/posttest probabilities were plotted as the Fagan nomogram. The optimal cutoff points for CA, CSI, and AI were 14.04°, 62.70%, and 107.42%, respectively, and all of them showed high sensitivity. The areas under curves were 0.91, 0.95, and 0.92, respectively. The positive predictive values were 0.84, 0.91, and 0.85, and the negative predictive values were 0.82, 0.85, and 0.85, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio values for CA, CSI, and AI were 4.09, 7.52, and 4.61, and the negative likelihood ratio values were 0.18, 0.14, and 0.13, respectively. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that footprint analysis methods are suitable for diagnosing flatfoot in preschool-aged children, and that the most appropriate cutoffs are as follows: CA ≤ 14.04°, CSI > 62.70%, and AI > 107.42%. The CSI had a predictive probability of more than 90% and is recommended in screening for flatfoot in preschool-aged children.
Footprint screening in preschool kids
Threaded Mode
