Variability between Clarke's angle and Chippaux-Smirak index for the diagnosis of flat feet.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
The measurements used in diagnosing biomechanical pathologies vary greatly. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance between Clarke's angle and Chippaux-Smirak index, and to determine the validity of Clarke's angle using the Chippaux-Smirak index as a reference.
METHODS
Observational study in a random population sample (n= 1,002) in A Coruña (Spain). After informed patient consent and ethical review approval, a study was conducted of anthropometric variables, Charlson comorbidity score, and podiatric examination (Clarke's angle and Chippaux-Smirak index). Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed.
RESULTS
The prevalence of flat feet, using a podoscope, was 19.0% for the left foot and 18.9% for the right foot, increasing with age. The prevalence of flat feet according to the Chippaux-Smirak index or Clarke's angle increases significantly, reaching 62.0% and 29.7% respectively. The concordance (kappa I) between the indices according to age groups varied between 0.25-0.33 (left foot) and 0.21-0.30 (right foot). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the Chippaux-Smirak index and Clarke's angle was -0.445 (left foot) and -0.424 (right foot). After adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity score and gender, the only variable with an independent effect to predict discordance was the BMI (OR= 0.969; 95% CI: 0.940-0.998).
CONCLUSION
There is little concordance between the indices studied for the purpose of diagnosing foot arch pathologies. In turn, Clarke's angle has a limited sensitivity in diagnosing flat feet, using the Chippaux-Smirak index as a reference. This discordance decreases with higher BMI values.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.