Background
Methods
Review construction
Search strategy
Study selection
Data collection and analysis
Risk of bias and quality appraisal
Statistical methods
Results
Study selection
Study characteristics
Authors | Study Type | Study aim | Population | N Participants (Boys:Girls) | Age range in years (mean ± SD) | Foot posture measures |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bertsch et al. [23] | Longitudinal Cohort | Evaluate plantar pressure data in infants to understand the maturation of the lower extremity and therefore differentiate pathological disorders | German infants, new walkers (Data collected longitudinally over 12 months) | 42 (20:22) | 10–17 months (14.8 ± 1.8) months at first exam | Foot shape index % (midfoot width/length) |
Bosch et al. [24] | Longitudinal Cohort | Establish a plantar pressure database of infants for analysis of individual clinical cases | German infants, new walkers (Data collected longitudinally over 4 years) | 43–90 (NR) | NR (15.3 ± 2.3)months at first exam | Foot form index % (midfoot width/length) |
Chang et al. [36] | Cross-sectional | To use a 3D scanner to evaluate the arch of pre-school children and describe the flexibility of the arch | Taiwanese kindergarten children | 44 (24:20) | 2–6 (NR) | Navicular height computed from ‘Peripher 3D Scanner’ |
Delgado-Abellán et al. [38] | Cross-sectional | To analyse age and gender differences in foot morphology in Spanish school aged children | Spanish school children | 1031 (497:534) | 6–12 (NR) | Arch height computed from 3D foot digitiser |
Didia et al. [27] | Cross-sectional | To create a data base of foot arch characteristics of a Nigerian population | Nigerian school children | 990 (458:532) | 5–14 (8.6 ± 1.9)a
| Contact index II |
Dowling et al. [62] | Cross-sectional | To determine whether a pedograph could be used to predict plantar pressures of the feet of primary school children | Australian, pre-pubertal children | 51 (22:29) | NR (8.4 ± 1.0) | Clarke’s angle Chippaux-Smirak index |
El et al. [45] | Cross-sectional | To analyse the longitudinal arch morphology and related factors including hypermobility, age, gender and rearfoot alignment in primary school children | Turkish primary school children | 579 (299:280) | 6–12 (9.23 ± 1.66) | Rearfoot angle Staheli arch index |
Evans [40] | Cross-sectional | To investigate the relationship between flat foot posture and body weight and related anthropometric measurements in school aged children | Australian, primary school children | 140 (68:72) | 7–10 (8.71 ± 0.91) | FPI-6 |
Evans and Karimi [42] | Cross-sectional | Examine the relationship between body mass index and foot posture in children | Five data sets including Australian and United Kingdom children | 728 (375:353) | 3–15 (9.07 ± 2.38) | FPI-6 |
Forriol and Pascual [28] | Cross-sectional | To investigate the development of the footprint according to age, gender, growth and foot type | Spanish children | 1676 (663:1013) | 3–17 (NR) | Clarke’s angle Chippaux-Smirak index |
Gijon-Nogueron et al. [43] | Cross-sectional | To establish normative FPI-6 reference values for children aged 6–11 years | Spanish children | 1762 (863:899) | 6–11 (8.28 ± 1.72) | FPI-6 |
Gill et al. [48] | Cross-sectional | Examine the relationship between foot arch height and walking characteristics in children and adults | American children | 254 (121:133) 18 (10:8) | 2–17 (9.13 ± 3.26) 4–8 (6.22 ± 1.26) | Chippaux-Smirak index Keimig index |
Gilmour and Burns [29] | Cross-sectional | Examine the influence of gender, limb preference and body weight in relation to the medial longitudinal arch in children | Australian children | 272 (128:144) | 5.5–10.9 (8.4 ± 1.7) | Arch index Navicular height |
Hallemans et al. [46] | Cross-sectional | To perform a longitudinal study investigating foot function changes within the first 5 months of walking | Belgian toddlers | 10 (3:7) | 10–15 (12.6 ± 1.7) months
| Foot form index % (width/length) |
Hawke et al. [41] | Cross-sectional | A post hoc analysis to explore the relationships between foot posture, flexibility and body mass in children | New Zealander children; 90% Caucasian, 7% Asian, 3% Maori. | 30 (10:20) | 7–15 (10.7 ± 2.3) | FPI-6 |
Igbigbi and Msamati [32] | Cross-sectional | To determine the arch index, classify the arch type and report the incidence of pes planus amongst the Malawian population | Indigenous Malawian teenagers | 305 (139:166) | 13–17 (NR) | Arch index |
Igbigbi et al. [33] | Cross-sectional | To determine the AI, classify the arch type and report the incidence of pes planus amongst a Kenyan and Tanzanian population | Kenyan teenagers Tanzanian teenagers | 314 (174:140) 249 (135:114) | 13–17 (NR) | Arch index |
Jankowicz-Szymanska and Mikolajczyk [49] | Longitudinal Cohort | To investigate the changes in the height of the medial longitudinal and transverse arches of the foot over a 2-year follow-up | Polish kindergarten children | 207 (102:105) | 3.5–4.49 (NR) at first exam | Clarke’s angle Gamma angle |
Mauch et al. [61] | Cross-sectional | To investigate the shape of children’s feet and assess if a difference exists between the feet of German and Australian children | Australian pre and primary school children German pre and primary school children | 86 (34:52) 419 (190:229) 86 (34:52) 419 (190:229) | 3–5 (4.3 ± 0.6) 7–12 (9.6 ± 1.4) 3–5 (4.2 ± 0.7) 7–12 (9.6 ± 1.4) | Clarke’s angle Chippaux-Smirak index |
Jankowicz-Szymanska and Mikolajczyk [49] | Cross-sectional | To assess the somatic features and to determine the correlation between skin fold thickness and MLA height and knee position children | Polish primary school children | 90 (45:45) | 7 (NR) | Clarke’s angle |
Morita et al. [63] | To investigate muscle strength and arch height and explore the relationships between these measures and lower limb physical performance | Japanese primary school children | 301 (146:155) | Third grade n = 158
(8.6 ± 0.5) Fifth grade
N = 143
(10.6 ± 0.5) | Foot arch height (FAH) – height of navicular tuberosity to ground
Foot arch index – (FAH/foot length × 100)
| |
Morrison et al. [37] | Cross-sectional | To evaluate the impact of excessive body mass on the anthropometric structure of the prepubescent foot | Scottish primary school children | 200 (90:110) | 9–12 (10.4 ± 0.9) ♂ (10.1 ± 0.8) ♀ | Navicular height |
Muller et al. [4] | Cross-sectional | To measure the static and dynamic foot characteristics in infants and children to establish foot structure and function in different age groups | German children | 7788 (3738:4050) | 1–13 (7.2 ± 2.9) | Arch index |
Nikolaidou and Boudolos [44] | Cross-sectional | To establish a footprint-based classification technique for the rational classification of foot types in young schoolchildren | Greek school children | 132 (67:65) | NR (10.4 ± 0.9) | Arch index Martirosov’s K index Chippaux-Smirak index Clarke’s angle |
Pfeiffer et al. [3] | Cross-sectional | To establish the prevalence of flat foot in a population of 3–6 year olds, evaluating cofactors including age, gender and weight | Austrian children | 835 (424:411) | 3–6 (4.4 ± 0.9) | Rearfoot angle |
Pinto et al. [47] | Cross-sectional | To evaluate whether a footprint taken during the Jack test could be quantified in children 2–5 years | Brazilian children | 60 (35:25) | 2–5 (3.4 ± NR) | Volpon footprint Valenti footprint |
Redmond et al. [39] | Cross-sectional | To establish normative FPI reference values for use in research and clinical decision making | 3 accumulated data sets; data sets inclusive of 4, 5 and 9 Ethnicity un-known | 397 | 3–17 (8.5 ± NR) | FPI-6 |
Sacco et al. [25] | Longitudinal Cohort | To compare the anthropometric characteristics of children’s feet from 3–10 years between German and Brazilian populations
(Data reordered longitudinally for 9 years)
| German children Brazilian children | 51–94 (NR) 391 (183:208) | 3–10 (NR) 3–10 (NR) | Chippaux-Smirak index Staheli arch index |
Sadeghi-Demneh et al. [35] | Cross-sectional | Determine the prevalence of flatfoot among elementary and secondary school children. Evaluating also age, gender, joint laxity and obesity | Iranian children | 667 (340:327) | 7–14 (10.6 ± 2.3) | Arch index Rearfoot angle Arch angle |
Tong and Kong [30] | Longitudinal cohort | To examine the medial longitudinal arch of children during development and explore the relationship between different footwear use | Singaporean children | 111 (52:59) | (6.9 ± 0.3) | Arch index |
Sobel et al. [34] | Cross-sectional | Determine the rearfoot angle in children in different age groups | African American children | 150 (52:98) | 6–12 (10.79 ± 2.75) | Rearfoot angle |
Tudor et al. [64] | Cross-sectional | To determine if there is an association between the severity of foot flatness and motor skills necessary for sport performance | Croatian children | 218 (106:112) | 11–15 (13.07 ± 1.24) | Arch index |
Unger and Rosenbaum [26] | Cross-sectional | To evaluate the foot shape statically and dynamically during walking | German Infant new walkers | 42 (20:22) | NR | Arch index Foot shape index % (width/length) |
Waseda et al. [22] | Cross-sectional | To establish standardised values of foot length and arch height in children and adolescents | Japanese school children | 10,155 (5311:4844) | 6–18 (NR) | Navicular height Arch height ratio |