Time to revise our dialogue: How flat is the paediatric flatfoot?

Stewart C. Morrison; Juliet McClymont; Carina Price; Chris Nester

doi:10.1186/s13047-017-0233-2

Time to revise our dialogue: How flat is the paediatric flatfoot?

Stewart C. Morrison^*, Juliet McClymont, Carina Price, Chris Nester

^*Corresponding author for this work

Population Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A recent systematic review of measures of foot development used the medial longitudinal arch profile as its primary indicator of development. A comparative analysis of existing studies was undertaken. This work confirmed changes with arch profile were age-dependent, although the age at which foot development ceased remains unknown. This work also highlighted the abundance of clinical measures used in existing research and outlined the challenges with drawing consensus from available data. There is a clear need to move this debate forward and, to do so, it is essential that scientific and clinical communities unite. It is time to abandon ill-defined measures of foot position, look beyond the medial longitudinal arch as a sole parameter of foot development and re-focus our perspective(s) on the paediatric foot in order to make advances with clinical practice and research.

Original language	English
Article number	50
Journal	Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
Volume	10
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-017-0233-2
Publication status	Published - 21 Nov 2017

Access to Document

10.1186/s13047-017-0233-2

Cite this

@article{7b54a87c42af440cb8f233b7796eb6e1,

title = "Time to revise our dialogue: How flat is the paediatric flatfoot?",

abstract = "A recent systematic review of measures of foot development used the medial longitudinal arch profile as its primary indicator of development. A comparative analysis of existing studies was undertaken. This work confirmed changes with arch profile were age-dependent, although the age at which foot development ceased remains unknown. This work also highlighted the abundance of clinical measures used in existing research and outlined the challenges with drawing consensus from available data. There is a clear need to move this debate forward and, to do so, it is essential that scientific and clinical communities unite. It is time to abandon ill-defined measures of foot position, look beyond the medial longitudinal arch as a sole parameter of foot development and re-focus our perspective(s) on the paediatric foot in order to make advances with clinical practice and research.",

author = "Morrison, {Stewart C.} and Juliet McClymont and Carina Price and Chris Nester",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017 The Author(s).",

year = "2017",

month = nov,

day = "21",

doi = "10.1186/s13047-017-0233-2",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

journal = "Journal of Foot and Ankle Research",

issn = "1757-1146",

publisher = "BioMed Central",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Time to revise our dialogue

T2 - How flat is the paediatric flatfoot?

AU - Morrison, Stewart C.

AU - McClymont, Juliet

AU - Price, Carina

AU - Nester, Chris

PY - 2017/11/21

Y1 - 2017/11/21

N2 - A recent systematic review of measures of foot development used the medial longitudinal arch profile as its primary indicator of development. A comparative analysis of existing studies was undertaken. This work confirmed changes with arch profile were age-dependent, although the age at which foot development ceased remains unknown. This work also highlighted the abundance of clinical measures used in existing research and outlined the challenges with drawing consensus from available data. There is a clear need to move this debate forward and, to do so, it is essential that scientific and clinical communities unite. It is time to abandon ill-defined measures of foot position, look beyond the medial longitudinal arch as a sole parameter of foot development and re-focus our perspective(s) on the paediatric foot in order to make advances with clinical practice and research.

AB - A recent systematic review of measures of foot development used the medial longitudinal arch profile as its primary indicator of development. A comparative analysis of existing studies was undertaken. This work confirmed changes with arch profile were age-dependent, although the age at which foot development ceased remains unknown. This work also highlighted the abundance of clinical measures used in existing research and outlined the challenges with drawing consensus from available data. There is a clear need to move this debate forward and, to do so, it is essential that scientific and clinical communities unite. It is time to abandon ill-defined measures of foot position, look beyond the medial longitudinal arch as a sole parameter of foot development and re-focus our perspective(s) on the paediatric foot in order to make advances with clinical practice and research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034589030&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13047-017-0233-2

DO - 10.1186/s13047-017-0233-2

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 29201146

AN - SCOPUS:85034589030

SN - 1757-1146

VL - 10

JO - Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

JF - Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

IS - 1

M1 - 50

ER -

Time to revise our dialogue: How flat is the paediatric flatfoot?

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this