Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Review
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Paediatric flexible flat foot: how are we measuring it and are we getting it right? A systematic review

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research201811:21

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-018-0264-3

  • Received: 15 January 2018
  • Accepted: 11 May 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Flexible flat foot is a normal observation in typically developing children, however, some children with flat feet present with pain and impaired lower limb function. The challenge for health professionals is to identify when foot posture is outside of expected findings and may warrant intervention. Diagnoses of flexible flat foot is often based on radiographic or clinical measures, yet the validity and reliability of these measures for a paediatric population is not clearly understood. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how paediatric foot posture is defined and measured within the literature, and if the psychometric properties of these measures support any given diagnoses.

Methods

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, AMED, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were systematically searched in January 2017 for empirical studies where participants had diagnosed flexible flat foot and were aged 18 years or younger. Outcomes of interest were the foot posture measures and definitions used. Further articles were sought where cited in relation to the psychometric properties of the measures used.

Results

Of the 1101 unique records identified by the searches, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria involving 20 foot posture measures and 40 definitions of paediatric flexible flat foot. A further 18 citations were sought in relation to the psychometric properties of these measures. Three measures were deemed valid and reliable, the FPI-6 > + 6 for children aged three to 15 years, a Staheli arch index of > 1.07 for children aged three to six and ≥ 1.28 for children six to nine, and a Chippaux-Smirak index of > 62.7% in three to seven year olds, > 59% in six to nine year olds and ≥ 40% for children aged nine to 16 years. No further measures were found to be valid for the paediatric population.

Conclusion

No universally accepted criteria for diagnosing paediatric flat foot was found within existing literature, and psychometric data for foot posture measures and definitions used was limited. The outcomes of this review indicate that the FPI – 6, Staheli arch index or Chippaux-Smirak index should be the preferred method of paediatric foot posture measurement in future research.

Keywords

  • Foot posture
  • Pes planus
  • Pes planovalgus
  • Flat feet
  • Child
  • Paediatric
  • Validity
  • Reliability
  • Foot posture index – Six item version (FPI-6)
  • Staheli arch index
  • Chippaux-Smirak index

Background

Flexible flat foot (also known as pes planus or planovalgus) in children, when there is the appearance of a lowered medial longitudinal arch, with or without rearfoot eversion [1] is one of the most frequently reported reasons to seek orthopaedic opinion [2]. Yet, in typically developing children, normative data indicates ‘flat’ is normal for children up to eight years of age [3], due to age appropriate osseous and ligamentous laxity, increased adipose tissue and immature neuromuscular control [4, 5]. Although variable, the ‘flatness’ of this foot posture reduces over the first decade of life [3, 69]. However, some children with a flexible flat foot posture report lower limb pain [10] and have demonstrated reduced lower limb function [11]. Furthermore, adults with flexible flat feet report significantly increased levels of back and lower limb pain [12] and reduced quality of life [13]. The challenge for health professionals is in identifying when a child’s foot is, or isn’t, in keeping with developmental expectations, particularly in relation to foot posture and/or function; in order to reassure, monitor or intervene accordingly [14, 15]. Therefore, the measure used to indicate where a foot posture is outside of the expected flatness in children (i.e. the diagnoses of flat foot) needs to be valid, reliable and appropriate for developing foot posture typically observed.

Flat foot is diagnosed through a variety of measures, including plain film radiographs (e.g. x-ray), static foot posture measures and footprint analysis [16]. Plain film radiographs are considered the reference standard to determine flat foot magnitude; however, this method is costly, involves radiation risk, and is not routinely used in clinical practice [17]. Plain film radiographs, static postures or footprint methods allow flat foot description by analysing different angles or measures and, in many cases, comparing these to known population norms. The prevalence of paediatric flat foot has been reported as low as 0.6% and as high as 77.9% (age range 5 to 14 years and 11 months to 5 years respectively), [18, 19]. Whilst an explanation of this broad variation may be due to the changing foot posture as the child develops, there is concern that the measures of flat foot may not differentiate between what is an expected level of ‘flatness’ in children and abnormal presentations [3]. To the best of the authors knowledge, there is no comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of flat foot measures as they apply to the paediatric population [16].

The two core elements of psychometric properties are reliability and validity [20]. Reliability relates to the inherent variability of a foot posture measure and the error that is attributable to the rater and the tool used, expressed as the stability of the data when measured by: one observer over two or more occasions (i.e. intra-rater reliability); or two or more observers (inter-rater reliability), [21]. Validity relates to the extent to which a tool measures what it is intended to measure [21]. Validity of a foot posture measure can be expressed in several ways. For example, criterion-related validity would be the ability of one measure of flat foot to predict results of another measure of flat foot that is assumed to be valid, such as comparing a foot print indices to a plain film radiograph as the reference standard [20]. Or construct validity, which in broad terms determines if the measure has enough ‘sensitivity’ to detect when the condition exists (e.g. a measure with high sensitivity has a low level of false-positive diagnoses), and ‘specificity’ to detect when the condition does not exist (e.g. a measure with high specificity has a low level of false-negative diagnoses) [22]. To be confident that a diagnosis of flat foot is correct, the measure used needs to be both valid and reliable for the population to which it’s applied.

The primary aim of this systematic review was to investigate how paediatric foot posture is measured and how paediatric flat foot posture is defined. The secondary aim is to identify the psychometric properties of the foot posture measures used to determine if these measures are valid and reliable for this population.

Methodology

Protocol and registration

The systematic review was guided by the PRISMA protocol [23]. The registered protocol is listed on PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42016033237.

Information sources and search strategy

The following databases were searched from inception to Jan 2017: MEDLINE [Ovid], CINAHL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, AMED, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. The search terms are outlined within Table 1.
Table 1

Search terms for systematic review of the literature on flexible flat foot in paediatrics

Search Terms

Foot/ OR Feet

AND

Child/ OR Infant/ OR asolescen*/ OR “preschool”/

AND

posture*/ OR “biomech*”/ OR “footprint*”/ OR “morphology*”/ OR “navicular height”/ OR “foot posture ind*”/ OR “p?ediatric flat foot proforma”/ OR “arch ind*”/ OR “arch height ind*”/ OR “foot mobility magnitude”/ OR “hindfoot posture”/ OR “arch insert”/ OR “medial arch”/ OR “foot posture measure*”/ OR “foot function ind*”/ OR “p-ffp” [paediatric flat foot proforma]/ OR “pffp” [paediatric flat foot proforma]/ OR “fpi”/ OR “fmm”/

Medical subject headings (MeSH) were exploded, combined with relevant keywords and truncated as necessary. Searches were limited to English language studies. Further studies were sought from a review of reference lists, conference proceedings and personal communications with content experts (Fig. 1). In addition, studies referenced within the final included articles that cited psychometric properties of the measures and criteria used to define flat foot were sourced (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flow chart of search strategy

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if published in peer-reviewed journals, participants were aged ≤18 years and the outcomes included a definition and measure of flat foot. Table 2 displays the full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 2

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion

Exclusion

Sample included individuals with pes planus

Participants with a history of rigid pes planus

Definition of pes planus, with criteria described

> 18 years of age

Conducted/described measures, which were aimed at diagnosing pes planus (e.g. rearfoot posture, arch height and footprint measures)

Participants who had acutely painful or inflammatory conditions (e.g. juvenile arthritis)

Children (≤18 years of age)

 

Empirical studies

 

English language

 

Title, abstract and full-text screening was independently conducted by two investigators (MP, HB/SM) with a third reviewer (CW) consulted in the event of non-agreement (Fig. 1).

Critical appraisal of bias and data extraction

A priori decision was set to include all studies meeting the criteria regardless of potential risk of bias and include all measures of flat foot where validity and reliability measures reached a moderate or above rating (see data management for rating parametres), [22, 24, 25]. Data extraction was in keeping with the aims of the study and included; study design, participant age range, sample size, ethnicity/country of study, foot posture measure(s), flat foot definition and relevant psychometric data related to QAREL and a purpose-built criterion described below.

The outcomes of interest in validity studies were sensitivity, specificity and correlation with a reference standard (e.g. plain film radiographs). Validity was assessed with a purpose-built criterion (Additional file 1), covering: reported validity of the flat foot measure and definition; age (in years) of the test population; differences in the cited protocol reported and included study protocol; and, a pragmatic determination of whether validity was demonstrated for a paediatric population (yes/no/with caution). For example, a yes was assigned if a paediatric sample was used for validity testing, the study protocol matched the cited protocol and sensitivity / specificity or correlations with reference standard were moderate or above; a no would be assigned if the study population was adult or sensitivity/specificity or correlations with reference standard were below moderate. With caution was assigned if the study population had been paediatric but aspects of sensitivity/specificity or correlation with a reference standard had mixed results (Additional file 1).

The reliability outcome of interest was inter-rater agreement. Inter-rater reliability studies were appraised using the QAREL checklist [26, 27] and a purpose-built assessment (Additional file 1). The 11 item QAREL tool assesses: if the test evaluated a sample of representative subjects; was it performed by raters representative of those standardly using the measure; were raters blinded to i) the findings of other raters, ii) their own prior findings iii) the reference standard outcomes, iv) other clinical information, and v) cues that were not part of the procedure; was the order of examination randomised; was the time interval between measures suitable; did they apply the protocol appropriately; and, was the statistical analysis correctly conducted. Each item was scored as yes, no, unclear or not applicable rating. The QAREL score is the number of items that received a ‘yes’ rating (Additional file 1). The purpose-built criteria covered five criteria; definition of flat foot used, age (in years) of the test population; differences in protocol reported between the cited and included article; inter-rater reliability measure and outcome; and, a pragmatic determinant of whether reliability was demonstrated for a paediatric population (yes/no/with caution). The assignment of yes/no/with caution were based on similar outcomes as for validity ratings (Additional file 1).

Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed articles against the QAREL criteria and purpose-built criteria (HB, MP/CW) with any discrepancies resolved by a fourth reviewer (SM).

Data management

Data were synthesized in table form. Correlations with reference standards and inter-rater reliability outcomes were presented as Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) [22], kappa coefficients [27] or sensitivity and specificity data [25]. For consistency, outcomes were rated according to Fig. 2. All other responses displayed as descriptive only or awarded a yes/no/with caution response. Outcomes were required to be deemed valid and reliable to be accepted as appropriate.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Rating parametres applied

Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a meta-analysis was not conducted. Instead, a descriptive synthesis of the results was undertaken.

Results

Study selection

The search strategy identified 1101 unique titles (Fig. 1). Following screening, a total of 27 articles were included in the review.

Participants

A total of 15,301 child participants were included within the 27 studies (Table 3). Participants ranged between 3 and 18 years of age. Sample sizes ranged from 22 to 5866 (Table 3). In one study, all participants were male [28]. Four studies separated participants into overweight and normal weight groups for analysis [2932]. Ethnicity or country of study was reported in 26 studies, representing 15 different ethnicities or countries (Table 3).
Table 3

Summary of included studies

Author (date)

Study code

N

Study design

Study aim

Participants

Mean age (SD), range in years*

Ethnicity or Country of study

Foot posture measure used

Abolarin et al. (2011)

[45]

560

Cross-sectional

To determine the role of age and type of foot wear as predictors of flatfoot

School children

6–12

Nigerian

Instep

Aharonson, Arcan & Steinback (1992)

[53]

82

Case-series

To establish foot-ground pressure patterns

Children with flexible flat foot

4–6

Caucasian

Rearfoot eversion

Foot ground pressure

Plantarflexion of talus angle

Calcaneal pitch angle

AP talocalcaneal angle

Bok et al. (2016)

[33]

21

Cohort

To evaluate the effects of different foot orthoses inversion angles on plantar pressure during gait

Children with flexible flat foot

9.9 (1.6), 8–13

South Korean

Rearfoot eversion (plus one of the following)

AP talocalcaneal angle

Lateral talocalcaneal angle

Talus-first metatarsal angle

Calcaneal pitch angle

Chang et al. (2014)

[46]

1228

Cohort

To establish a new classification of flatfoot by characteristics of frequency distribution in footprint indices

School children

7.3 (1.1), 6–10

Taiwanese

Staheli arch index

Chippaux-Smirak index

Chen et al. (2011)

[34]

1319

Cohort

To analyse and compare footprint measures of preschool aged children

Children with flexible flat foot

5.2, 3–6

Taiwan

Clarke’s angle

Chippaux-Smirak Index

Staheli arch index

Chen et al. (2014)

[56]

605

Cohort

To determine the prevalence of flatfoot in children with delayed motor development

Children with & without developmental coordination disorder

4.4, 3–7

Taiwanese

Chippaux-Smirak index

Chen et al. (2015)

[54]

21

Cohort

To investigate the effects of foot wear on joint range of motion, ground reaction forces and muscle activity

Children with & without flat foot

6.3, 5–11

Taiwanese

Arch index

Drefus et al. (2017)

[47]

30

Cross-sectional

To determine the intra and inter-rater reliability of the Arch height index

Children

9.6 (2.0), 6–12

United States

Rearfoot eversion

Arch height index (sitting/standing)

Evans and Karimi (2015)

[29]

728

Cross-sectional

To explore the relationship between foot posture and body mass

Over and normal weight children

9.1 (2.4), 3–15

Australia and United Kingdom

FPI-6

Ezema et al. (2014)

[48]

474

Cross-sectional

To determine associated personal characteristics of flatfooted school children

Children

6–10

Nigerian

Staheli arch index

Galli et al. (2014)

[35]

70

Cohort

To determine if children with Down syndrome were characterised by an accentuated external foot rotation in gait

Children with & without Down syndrome

9.6 (1.7), 4–14

Italy

Arch index

Galli et al. (2015)

[36]

64

Cohort

To characterise quantitatively the foot-ground contact parameters during static upright standing

Children with & without cerebral palsy

8.6 (2.4), 5–13

Italy

Arch index

García-Rodríguez et al. (1999)

[49]

1181

Cross-sectional

To estimate prevalence and number of unnecessary treatments of flatfooted children

School children

4–13

Spanish

Plantar footprint

Kothari et al. (2016)

[50]

95

Cross-sectional

To investigate the relationship between foot posture and the proximal joints

Children with & without flat foot

11 (2.9), 8–15

United Kingdom

Arch height index

Morrison, Ferrari & Smillie (2013)

[28]

22

Quasi-RCT

To report clinical findings of foot posture and lower limb hypermobility and evaluate the impact of foot orthoses on spatio-temporal gait parameters.

Male children with developmental coordination disorder

Median age 7.5, 6–11

United Kingdom

FPI-6

Nikolaidou & Boudolos (2006)

[37]

132

Cohort

To develop a footprint-based classification technique for the rational classification of foot types

School children

10.4 (0.9), 9–11

Greek

Arch index

Chippaux-Smirak index

Martirosov’s K index

Clarke’s angle

Pau et al. (2016)

[30]

130

Cohort

To screen plantar pressures during level walking with a backpack among normal, overweight and obese school children

Overweight, obese and normal weight children

9.3 (2.0), 6–13

Italian

Arch index

Pauk, Ihnatouski & Najafi (2014)

[38]

93

Cohort

To assess differences in plantar pressure distributions and reliability of the Clarke’s angle

Children with & without flat foot

12.6 (1.9), 9–16

Poland

Clarke’s angle

Calcaneal pitch

Calcaneal first metatarsal angle

Pauk & Szymul (2014)

[55]

73

Case-control

Comparing vertical ground reaction force data between flat and neutrally aligned feet

Children with & without flat foot

10.8 (3.6), 4–18

Poland

Clarke’s angle

Rearfoot eversion

Pfeiffer et al. (2006)

[39]

835

Cohort

To establish prevalence and cofactors of flatfoot, and estimate number of unnecessary interventions received

Children

3–6

Austrian

Rearfoot eversion

Reimers, Pedersen & Brodersen (1995)

[40]

759

Cohort

To establish foot deformity and triceps surae length in Danish children

Children and adolescents

3–17

Denmark

Chippaux-Smirak index

Selby-Silverstein, Hillstrom & Palisano (2001)

[41]

26

Cohort

To determine if foot orthoses immediately affected gait of children with Down syndrome or excessively pronated feet

Children with flat foot, with & without Down syndrome

3–6

North American

Rearfoot eversion

Stavlas et al. (2005)

[51]

5866

Cross-sectional

To determine foot morphology evolution in children between 6 and 17 years of age

Children

6–17

Greek

Footprint evaluation

Tashiro et al. (2015)

[52]

619

Cross-sectional

To investigate the relationship between toe grip strength and foot posture

Children

11.2 (0.7), 10–12

Japan

Staheli arch index

Twomey et al. (2010)

[42]

52

Cohort

To investigate differences in kinematics during walking gait

Children with & without flat foot

11.2 (1.2), 9–12

Not reported

Clarke’s angle

Arch index

Navicular height

Villarroya et al. (2009)

[31]

116

Case-control

To evaluate the measures of, and foot arch types, in different weight children using radiographic and footprint indices

Obese & non-obese children

Boys 12.4 (1.6), Girls 11.9 (1.5), 9–16.5

Spanish

Clarke’s angle

Chippaux-Smirak index

Calcaneal pitch

Talus-first metatarsal angle

Yan et al. (2013)

[32]

100

Case-control

To examine changes in dynamic plantar pressure distribution in children of different weight

Obese & non-obese children

10.3 (0.7), 7–12

China

Arch index

*where available

AP – anteroposterior, FPI-6 – foot posture index – 6 item, LAC - longitudinal axis of calcaneus, LAF - longitudinal axis of foot, MLA – medial longitudinal arch, NR – not reported, mm – millimetres

Additional information regarding foot posture parametres can be found in Additional file 2

Study design

The majority of included studies were cohort [30, 3344] and cross-sectional [29, 4552], with a respective 13 and 9 of each study design. Of the other five included articles, three were case control [31, 32, 38], one was a case series [53], and one was a quasi-randomised controlled trial [28].

Primary findings

Foot posture measures and definitions

Across the 27 included studies, 20 foot posture measures were used, involving 40 definitions of flat foot (Table 4). Ten of the 27 studies used multiple measures of flat foot. One study featured a novel method of footprint evaluation [51]. Methodological variations existed across studies, with different parameters and angles assessed following measurement, and different methods for obtaining the footprint/angle and determining flat foot (Table 4, Additional file 2).
Table 4

Rating of reported validity and reliability for foot posture measures and definition of flexible flat foot in paediatric populations

Foot posture measure

Study code

Flat foot definition used

Age range of participants in years

Validity as reported in paediatric population

Reliability as reported in paediatric population

Rating of validity/reliability

(Yes/No/With caution)

Plain film radiograph angles

Calcaneal pitch

[33, 53]

<  20°

4–6 & 8–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

[38]

<  23°

4–18

Nil

Nil

No/No

[31]

≤ 15.4°

7–12

NR [57]

Nil

No/No

AP talocalcaneal

[53]

>  25°

4–6

Nil

Nil

No/No

[33]

>  30°

8–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

Plantarflexion of talus

[53]

>  23°

4–6

Nil

Nil

No/No

Lateral talocalcaneal

[33]

>  45°

8–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

Calcaneal first metatarsal

[38]

145°-170°

4–18

Nil

Nil

No/No

Talus-first metatarsal

[33] [31]

>  4°

7–13

Nil

NR [80], NA [64]

No/No

Foot print indices

Arch index

[35, 54], [36]

≥ 0.26

3–6, 5–13, 4–14

Nil

Nil

No/No

[37]

≥ 0.26

10

NR [58]

Substantial [81], NR [37]

No/Yes

[30, 32, 42]

>  0.26

6–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

Chippaux-Smirak

[46]

≥ 59%

6–9

Nil

Excellent [46]

No/Yes

[34]

>  62.7%

3–7

Moderate [34]

NR [65]

With caution/No

[56]

>  62.7%

3–7

Moderate [34]

Nil

With caution/No

[37],

≥ 45%

10

NR [59]

NR [37]

No/No

[40]

≥ 45%

3–17

Nil

Nil

No/No

[31]

≥ 40%

9–16

Moderate [31]

NR [60]

Nil

With caution/No

Clarke’s angle

[34]

≤ 14.04

3–6

Moderate [34]

Nil

With caution/No

[37]

≤ 20°

10

Nil

NR [37, 59]

No/No

[38]

<  42°

9–16

Excellent [38]

Nil

With caution/No

[55]

<  42°

4–18

Nil

Nil

No/No

[31]

<  29.9°

9–16

Moderate [31],NR [60]

Nil

With caution/No

Staheli arch index

[46]

≥ 1.28

6–9

Nil

Excellent [46]

No/Yes

[34]

>  1.07

3–6

Moderate [34]

NR [65]

With caution/No

[48]

>  1.15

6–10

NR [59, 61]

Nil

No/No

[52]

>  0.89

10–12

Nil

Nil

No/No

Footprint index

[42]

<  0.25

9–12

Nil

Nil

No/No

Martirosov’s K index

[37]

≥ 1.25

10

Nil

NR [37]

No/No

Footprint evaluation

[51]

X > Y

6–17

Nil

NR [66]

No/No

Instep

[45]

100 mm

6–12

Nil

Nil

No/No

Plantar footprint

[49]

≥ 50%

4–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

Static foot measures

Rearfoot eversion

[53]

>  10°

4–6

Nil

Nil

No/No

[33]

≥ 4°

8–13

Nil

Nil

No/No

[47]

≥ 4°

6–13

Nil

NA [67]

No/No

[55]

>  5°

4–18

Nil

Nil

No/No

[39]

>  5°

3–6

Nil

NR [68]

No/No

[41]

> (7° - age)

3–6

Nil

Substantial [41]

No/Yes

Arch Height Index

[47]

≤ 0.37

6–13

NR [62]

Substantial [47]NR [82, 83]

No/Yes

[50]

<  0.31

8–15

Nil

Nil

No/No

FPI-6

[29]

≥ + 6

3–15

Not rated^ [63]

Substantial [69]

With caution/Yes

[28]

≥ + 4

6–11

Nil

Excellent [70]

No/Yes

Navicular height

[42]

<  20 mm

9–12

Nil

Nil

No/No

Other measures

Plantar pressure analysis (FGP)

[53]

54%

4–6

Nil

Nil

No/No

AP – anterioposterior, FPI-6 – foot posture index – 6 item version, NR – not reported in cited text, NA – not available, FGP – foot ground pressure

Notes: See data management for ratings of reliability and validity. *See Additional file 1 for rating parametres. ^RASCH analysis

Of the 20 foot posture measures used, six were plain film radiographs of angles including calcaneal pitch (or calcaneal inclination), anterior-posterior talocalcaneal (AP talocalcaneal), plantarflexion of talus, lateral talocalcaneal, calcaneal-first metatarsal and talus-first metatarsal angles (Table 4). Nine were footprint indices (Chippaux-Smirak index, Arch index, Clarke’s angle [or Footprint angle, Alpha angle], Staheli Arch index, Footprint index, Martirosov’s K index, Footprint evaluation, Instep and Plantar footprint), (Table 4). There were four static foot measures (rearfoot eversion, Arch height index, Foot Posture Index–6 item version [FPI-6] and navicular height) and one plantar pressure study [Foot Ground Pressure], (Table 4).

The Arch index was the most frequently used measure (n = 7), with the Chippaux-Smirak index and rearfoot eversion also frequently employed (n = 6 respectively), (Table 4). A further seven measures were used in more than one study (Clarke’s angle (n = 5), Calcaneal pitch and Staheli arch Index (n = 4), and, AP talocalcaneal, Talus-first metatarsal angle, Arch height index and FPI-6 (n = 2 respectively)), (Table 4). Nine alternate assessment measures were used once across the included studies: plantarflexion of talus, lateral talocalcaneal angle, calcaneal-first metatarsal angle, and; Footprint index; Martirosov’s K Index; instep; Plantar Footprint; navicular height; and, Foot Ground Pressure (Table 4).

The most commonly used flat foot definition was the Arch Index ≥0.26, used four times across the 27 included studies. An Arch index of >0.26 was used twice, and ≥0.28 used once in three further studies. A Chippaux-Smirak Index of ≥45 and >62.70% were used twice (n = 2 respectively). Other definitions used twice across the included studies were talus-first metatarsal angle, rearfoot eversion 5° and 4°, and a Clarke’s Angle of <42° (Table 4).

Thirteen of the included 27 studies did not investigate or report the psychometric properties of the measures used to determine paediatric flat foot [30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 45, 49, 50, 5255], (Table 4), leaving 8 of the 20 foot posture measures used within this systematic review without reported validity or reliability outcomes to justify their use. Specifically; plain film radiograph measures of AP talocalcaneal angle, plantarflexion of talus, lateral talocalcaneal angle, calcaneal first metatarsal angle; the Instep; Plantar footprint; navicular height; and, Foot Ground Pressure, (Table 4, Additional file 1).

Quality and appropriateness of reported psychometric properties for a paediatric population

Two studies investigated the validity of the foot posture measures used with their studies [34, 38], five studies [29, 37, 47, 48, 56] justified their choice by citing seven existing studies [5763] and one study did both [31]. No foot posture measures were assessed with a ‘yes’ ranking in relation to their validity for a paediatric population (Table 4, Additional file 1). The Chippaux-Smirak index, Clarke’s angle, Staheli arch index and the FPI-6 respectively were ranked as relevant to a paediatric population ‘with caution’ (Table 4, Additional file 1).

The quality of the reliability testing, in relation to a paediatric population, was also limited. Four studies investigated the reliability of the measure used to determine flat foot within their studies [37, 41, 46, 47], five studies [28, 29, 34, 39, 51] justified their choice by citing seven existing studies [6470] and three studies did both [31, 37, 47]. Two cited articles were not available to assess [64, 67]. The Arch index, Chippaux-Smirak index, Staheli arch index, rearfoot eversion, Arch height index and the FPI-6 received a ‘yes’ ranking as relevant to their reliability for a paediatric population (Table 4, Additional file 1), with only the Chippaux-Smirak index, the Staheli arch index and rearfoot eversion reported as having almost perfect repeatability within this population (Table 4). However, alternative studies investigating the Chippaux-Smirak index, Staheli arch index and the FPI-6, as well as the Clarke’s angle were assessed as relevant to a paediatric population ‘with caution’ (Table 4, Additional file 1).

Summary of results

From the 27 studies included, data were extracted for 20 foot posture measures involving 40 definitions of flat foot within a paediatric population (Table 3). Eight of the included 27 articles investigated the reliability or validity of the flat foot measures used, six further articles justified their choice of measure by citing existing psychometric data and 13 articles neither justified nor reported psychometric properties for their measures of choice (Table 4). Seven measures, involving 11 definitions of flat foot, were determined to have reported validity or reliability specific for a paediatric population (Table 4). Of these measures, no measure had strong data to support validity and reliability of the measure in paediatric samples, and only three were reported to have moderate or with caution validity data and moderate or above reliability data for a paediatric population. Specifically, these three measures were the Chippaux-Smirak index of >63%, ≥59% and ≥40% (for children aged six to nine, three to seven and nine to 16 years respectively), the Staheli arch index of >1.07 and ≥1.28 (for children aged three to six and six to nine respectively) and the FPI-6 of ≥ + 6 (for children aged three to 15 years), (Table 4).

Discussion

There was a modest body of evidence reporting paediatric specific measures of foot posture. There was no consistently used measure to determine paediatric flexible flat foot in the literature and the choice of foot posture measure, in relation to the validity and reliability, was rarely justified. Within the scope of this review, only three measures of flexible flat foot had any published data to support validity and reliability of the measure within a paediatric population; the Chippaux-Smirak index, Staheli arch index and the FPI-6. However, each of these measures were deemed to have limitations.

The Staheli arch and Chippaux-Smirak, used four and six times respectively across this review, are foot print indices, based on the width of the midfoot compared to the width of the rearfoot (Staheli arch) or metatarsals (Chippaux-Smirak), when the foot is in bipedal weight-bearing relaxed stance, expressed as a ratio (Additional file 2). As the child’s arch develops with age, the ratio should decrease accordingly. This is supported by normative data [3]. The definition of flat foot for the Chippaux-Smirak index within this review did decreased linear to age: 62.7% in 3 to 6 year olds, to ≥40% in 9 to 16 year olds (Table 3). However, the definitions of flat foot for the Staheli arch index did not decrease as expected (e.g. >1.07 in 3 to 6 year olds and ≥1.28 in 6 to 9 year olds, Table 3). This finding is not consistent with existing normative data and suggests these definitions should be used with caution. Furthermore, concerns exist that two-dimensional indices are limited in their ability to assess a three-dimensional construct [71]. It is suggested that categorising the foot posture based on footprint data disregards the complexity and multi-planar motion of the foot [3]. This greatly challenges the validity of the measures using this construct. At a minimum, these measures are reportedly influenced by the weight of the participants [72].

The FPI-6 is a composite tool that assesses multiple components of foot posture, relative to the age of the participant, and presents as an overall score between − 12 to + 12 [73], (Additional file 2). The ‘with caution’ rating assigned to the validity of the FPI-6 was due to the results including an adult population [63]. A flat foot definition ≥ + 6 for a paediatric population is well supported in the literature in terms of normative data [3, 69, 74, 75] and it is considered as the only flat foot scale that accommodates differences between normal and overweight/obese children [29]. Furthermore, only the FPI-6 was tested with a broad age range (i.e. children aged 5 to 16 years old [69, 70]). Interestingly, the FPI-6 was only used in two of the include studies [28, 29], despite being the recommended foot posture measure associated with the GALLOP proforma [76] (an opinion and evidence based proforma for assessment of gait and lower limbs in paediatrics).

The topic of paediatric foot posture remains controversial [39, 77] with little consensus on how this frequently observed foot type should be measured, defined or assessed. Importantly, it is acknowledged that a flat foot posture outside of expected norms may not require management. Clinician’s evaluation of the child, directed by a validated tool such as the paediatric flat foot proforma (p-FFP) [15] assist the clinician in determining when intervention may be required. What this review has highlighted, however, is an issue central to the discourse surrounding this topic. That is, much of the evidence that guides clinician assessment and intervention into paediatric flexible flat foot are potentially based on unsubstantiated measures. It is essential this is addressed in future research. Valid and reliable diagnoses of flat foot appropriate to the paediatric population is required to i) inform the clinician when the foot posture is not in keeping with expected development, and ii) allow research to be appropriate and clinically applicable.

Considering the difficulties associated with static foot print analysis, researchers and clinicians may need to consider the FPI-6 or alternative composite tools (such as the foot mobility magnitude model [78]) or dynamic measurement to better understand paediatric foot structure. Indeed, paediatric based studies have shown a significant difference between static structure and dynamic foot function [79] which may be of clinical relevance. As there was a paucity of dynamic measures in the included studies, further investigation may be beneficial. This extends also to a lack of understanding on the ability of these measures to detect change over time. For researchers to adequately assess development of, and intervention effects in, paediatric flexible flat foot, measures need to be robust and applicable.

There are a number of key limitations in this study. Only English language studies were included in the search strategy and the risk of bias of the included studies was not assessed with a specific critical appraisal tool. Many of the included studies did not cite support for their choice of measure or did not cite appropriately. Indeed, many of the studies reporting existing data assumed it was obtained appropriately and transferrable to their study. For example, Villarroya et al. (2009) quoted psychometric data for the Chippaux-Smirak index from the Kanatli, Yetkin and Cila (2001) article, which relates to the validity of the Staheli arch index; and Mathieson et al. (1999) was quoted in Nikolaidou et al. (2006) even though it obtained data from an adult population. Many studies did not describe their methods or population clearly (Table 2), and two texts were unavailable to the authors [64, 67]. Therefore, these results should be interpreted accordingly. This systematic review was also limited by a paucity of literature in relation to foot posture assessment in the paediatric population. Within the limits of this study, even the reference standard measures (e.g. plain film radiographs) had little psychometric data. Although this review had a broad scope, it did not account for studies which looked solely at the psychometric properties of a measure without a definition of pes planus. Therefore, future studies may search for these measures individually. Furthermore, this systematic review process was underpinned by best practice in the conduct of systematic reviews (PRISMA), however, potential publication and language bias should be acknowledged.

Conclusion

A synthesis of available literature reveals that there is not a universally accepted criterion for diagnosing abnormal paediatric flat foot within existing literature, and psychometric data for the measures and definitions used was limited. Within the limits of this review, only three measures of flexible flat foot had any published data to support validity and reliability of the measure within a paediatric population (Chippaux-Smirak index, Staheli arch index and FPI-6), each with their own limitations. Further research into valid and reliable, clinically relevant foot posture measures, including dynamic measures and the influence of age, gender and body mass on flat foot incidence, specifically for the paediatric population, is required. Furthermore, age-specific cut-off values should be further defined.

Abbreviations

AP : 

anteroposterior

FGP : 

foot ground pressure

FPI-6 : 

foot posture index – 6 item

GALLOP: 

Gait and Lower Limb observations of Paediatrics proforma

ICCs: 

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

LAC : 

longitudinal axis of calcaneus

LAF : 

longitudinal axis of foot

MLA : 

medial longitudinal arch

NA : 

not available

NR : 

not reported

Declarations

Funding

CMW is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Research Health Professional Fellowship.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Authors’ contributions

The protocol for the systematic review was written by MP/HB. Quality of studies, data extraction and analysis was undertaken by MP, HB, CW and SM. All authors contributed to the manuscript draft and approved of the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.\

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia
(2)
School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia
(3)
Allied Health, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC, 3199, Australia
(4)
School of Primary and Allied Health, Monash University, Frankston, VIC, 3199, Australia

References

  1. Evans A. The paediatric flat foot and general anthropometry in 140 Australian school children aged 7-10years. J Foot Ankle Res. 2011;4:12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Krul M, van der Wouden JC, Schellevis FG, van Suijlekom-Smit LWA, Koes BW. Foot problems in children presented to the family physician: a comparison between 1987 and 2001. Fam Pract. 2009;26:174–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Uden H, Scharfbillig R, Causby R. The typically developing paediatric foot: how flat should it be? A systematic review. J Foot Ankle Res. 2017;10:37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Nemeth B. The diagnosis and management of common childhood orthopedic disorders. Curr Prob Paediatr Ad. 2011;41:2–28.Google Scholar
  5. Sadeghi-Demneh E, Azadinia F, Jafarian F, Shamsi F, Melvin JM, Jafarpishe M, Rezaeian Z. Flatfoot and obesity in school-age children: a cross-sectional study. Clin Obes. 2016;6:42–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Halabchi F, Mazaheri R, Mirshahi M, Abbasian L. Pediatric flexible flatfoot; clinical aspects and algorithmic approach. Iran J Pediatr. 2013;23:247–60.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Mickle KJ, Steele JR, Munro BJ. Is the foot structure of preschool children moderated by gender. J Paediatr Orthoped. 2008;28:593–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Stolzman S, Irby MB, Callahan AB, Skelton JA. Pes planus and pediatric obesity: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Obes. 2015;5:52–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Tenenbaum S, Hershkovich O, Gordon B, Bruck N, Thein R, Derazne E, Tzur D, Shamiss A, Afek A. Flexible pes planus in adolescents: body mass index, body height, and gender--an epidemiological study. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34:811–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kothari A, Dixon PC, Stebbins J, Zavatsky AB, Theologis T. The relationship between quality of life and foot function in children with flexible flatfeet. Gait Posture. 2015;41:786–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin CJ, Lai KA, Kuan TS, Chou YL. Correlating factors and clinical significance of flexible flatfoot in preschool children. J Paediatr Orthoped. 2001;21:378–82.Google Scholar
  12. Kosashvili Y, Fridman T, Backstein D, Safir O, Bar Ziv Y. The correlation between pes planus and anterior knee or intermittent low back pain. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29:910–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Shibuya N, Jupiter D, Ciliberti L, VanBuren V, Fontaine J. Characteristics of adult flatfoot in the United States. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;49Google Scholar
  14. Labovitz JM. The algorithmic approach to pediatric flexible pes planovalgus. Clin Podiatr Med Sur. 2006;23:57–76. viiiView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans AM. The flat-footed child -- to treat or not to treat: what is the clinician to do? J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008;98:386–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen KC, Yeh CJ, Tung LC, Yang JF, Yang SF, Wang CH. Relevant factors influencing flatfoot in preschool-aged children. Euro J Paediatr. 2011;170:931–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Weimar W, Shroyer J. Arch height index normative values of college-aged women using the arch height index measurement system. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2013;103:213–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Didia BC, Omu ET, Obuoforibo AA. The use of footprint contact index II for classification of flat feet in a Nigerian population. Foot Ankle. 1987;7:285–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould N, Moreland M, Alvarez R, Trevino S, Fenwick J. Development of the child's arch. Foot Ankle. 1989;9:241–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2003;8(4):597–606.Google Scholar
  21. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?". Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed. edn. Upper Saddle River. In: N.J: Pearson/prentice hall; 2009.Google Scholar
  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Brit Med J. 2009;339Google Scholar
  24. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Cicchetti DV. The precision of reliability and validity estimates re-visited: distinguishing between clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001;23:695–700.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucas NP, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Bogduk N. The development of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:854–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lucas N, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Moran R, Rickards L, Turner R, Bogduk N. The reliability of a quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:111.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Morrison SC, Ferrari J, Smillie S. Assessment of gait characteristics and orthotic management in children with developmental coordination disorder: preliminary findings to inform multidisciplinary care. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34:3197–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Evans AM, Karimi L. The relationship between paediatric foot posture and body mass index: do heavier children really have flatter feet? J Foot Ankle Res. 2015;8:46.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Pau M, Leban B, Corona F, Gioi S, Nussbaum MA. School-based screening of plantar pressures during level walking with a backpack among overweight and obese schoolchildren. Ergonomics. 2016;59:697–703.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Adoracion Villarroya M, Manuel Esquivel J, Tomas C, Buenafe A, Moreno L. Foot structure in overweight and obese children. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2008;3:39–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Yan S, Zhang K, Tan G, Yang J, Liu Z. Effects of obesity on dynamic plantar pressure distribution in Chinese prepubescent children during walking. Gait Posture. 2013;37:37–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Bok SK, Lee H, Kim BO, Ahn S, Song Y, Park I. The effect of different foot orthosis inverted angles on plantar pressure in children with flexible flatfeet. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0159831.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Chen KC, Yeh CJ, Kuo JF, Hsieh CL, Yang SF, Wang CH. Footprint analysis of flatfoot in preschool-aged children. Eur J Pediatr. 2011;170:611–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Galli M, Cimolin V, Rigoldi C, Pau M, Costici P, Albertini G. The effects of low arched feet on foot rotation during gait in children with Down syndrome. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2014;58:758–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Galli M, Cimolin V, Pau M, Leban B, Brunner R, Albertini G. Foot pressure distribution in children with cerebral palsy while standing. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;41-42:52–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nikolaidou ME, Boudolos KD. A footprint-based approach for the rational classification of foot types in young schoolchildren. Foot. 2006;16:82–90. 89p.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Pauk J, Ihnatouski M, Najafi B. Assessing plantar pressure distribution in children with flatfoot arch: application of the Clarke angle. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2014;104:622–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pfeiffer M, Kotz R, Ledl T, Hauser G, Sluga M. Prevalence of flat foot in preschool-aged children. Pediatrics. 2006;118:634–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Reimers J, Pedersen B, Brodersen A. Foot deformity and the length of the triceps surae in Danish children between 3 and 17 years old. J Pediatr Orthoped. 1995;4:71–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Selby-Silverstein L, Hillstrom H, Palisano R. The effect of foot orthoses on standing foot posture and gait of young children with Down syndrome. Neurorehabilitation. 2001;16:183–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Twomey D, McIntosh AS, Simon J, Lowe K, Wolf SI. Kinematic differences between normal and low arched feet in children using the Heidelberg foot measurement method. Gait Posture. 2010;32:1–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Chen K-C, Tung L-C, Tung C-H, Yeh C-J, Yang J-F, Wang C-H. An investigation of the factors affecting flatfoot in children with delayed motor development. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35:639–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Chen JP, Chung MJ, Wu CY, Cheng KW, Wang MJ. Comparison of barefoot walking and shod walking between children with and without flat feet. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2015;105:218–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Abolarin T, Aiyegbusi A, Tella A, Akinbo S. Predictive factors for flatfoot: the role of age and footwear in children in urban and rural communities in south West Nigeria. Foot. 2011;21:188–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Chang C-H, Chen Y-C, Yang W-T, Ho P-C, Hwang A-W, Chen C-H, Chang J-H, Chang L-W. Flatfoot diagnosis by a unique bimodal distribution of footprint index in children. PLoS One. 2014;9:e115808.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Drefus LC, Kedem P, Mangan SM, Scher DM, Hillstrom HJ. Reliability of the arch height index as a measure of foot structure in children. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2017;29:83–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ezema CI, Abaraogu UO, Okafor GO. Flat foot and associated factors among primary school children: a cross-sectional study. Hong Kong Physio J. 2014;32:13–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Garcia-Rodriguez A, Martin-Jimenez F, Carnero-Varo M, Gomez-Gracia E, Gomez-Aracena J, Fernandez-Crehuet J. Flexible flat feet in children: a real problem. Pediatr. 1999;103:e84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Kothari A, Dixon PC, Stebbins J, Zavatsky AB, Theologis T. Are flexible flat feet associated with proximal joint problems in children. Gait Posture. 2016;45:204–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Stavlas P, Grivas TB, Michas C, Vasiliadis E, Polyzois V. The evolution of foot morphology in children between 6 and 17 years of age: a cross-sectional study based on footprints in a Mediterranean population. J Foot Ankle Sur. 2005;44:424–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Yuto T, Takahiko F, Daisuke U, Daisuke M, Shu N, Naoto F, Daiki A, Takayuki H, Saori M, Hidehiko S, et al. Children with flat feet have weaker toe grip strength than those having a normal arch. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27:3533–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Aharonson Z, Arcan M, Steinback T. Foot-ground pressure pattern of flexible flatfoot in children, with and without correction of calcaneovalgus. Clin Orthoped Rel Res. 1992:177 - 182.Google Scholar
  54. Chen J, Chung M, Wu C, Cheng K, Wang M. Comparison of barefoot walking and shod walking between children with and without flat feet. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2015;105:218–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Pauk J, Szymul J. Differences in pediatric vertical ground reaction force between planovalgus and neutrally aligned feet. Acta of Bioengineer Biomech. 2014;16:95–101.Google Scholar
  56. Chen KC, Tung LC, Tung CH, Yeh CJ, Yang JF, Wang CH. An investigation of the factors affecting flatfoot in children with delayed motor development. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35:639–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Gould N. Graphing the adult foot and ankle. Foot & Ankle. 1982;2:213–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. McCrory JL, Young MJ, Boulton AJM, Cavanagh PR. Arch index as a predictor of arch height. Foot. 1997;7:79–81.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Mathieson I, Upton D, Birchenough A. Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprints. Foot. 1999;9:145–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Cila E. Footprint and radiographic analysis of the feet. J Pediatr Orthoped. 2001;21:225–8.Google Scholar
  61. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech. 1987;20:547–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Hillstrom H, Song J, Kraszewski A, Hafer J, Mootanah R, Dudour A, Chow B. Foot type biomechanics part 1: structure and function of the asymptomatic foot. Gait Posture. 2013;37:445–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Keenan A, Redmond AC, Horton M, Conaghan PG, Tennant A. The foot posture index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2007;88:88–93. 86p.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Staheli LT, Chew DE, Corbett M. The longitudinal arch. A survey of eight hundred and eighty-two feet in normal children and adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:426–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Queen RM, Mall NA, Hardaker WM, Nunley JA 2nd. Describing the medial longitudinal arch using footprint indices and a clinical grading system. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28:456–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Forriol F, Pascual J. Footprint analysis between three and seventeen years of age. Foot Ankle. 1990;11:101–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Joshi R, Smita R, Song J, Backus S, Sootanah R, H H (Eds.): Structure and function of the foot: Wolters Sluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2013.Google Scholar
  68. Sobel E, Levitz S, Caselli M, Brentnall Z, Tran MQ. Natural history of the Rearfoot angle: preliminary values in 150 children. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;20:119–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Evans AM, Rome K, Peet L. The foot posture index, ankle lunge test, Beighton scale and the lower limb assessment score in healthy children: a reliability study. J Foot Ankle Res. 2012;5(1)Google Scholar
  70. Morrison SC, Ferrari J. Inter-rater reliability of the foot posture index (FPI-6) in the assessment of the paediatric foot. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;2:26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Lee YC, Lin G, Wang MJJ. Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods. J Foot Ankle Res. 2014;7:44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Gijon-Nogueron G, Montes-Alguacil J, Martinez-Nova A, Alfageme-Garcia P, Cervera-Marin JA, Morales-Asencio JM. Overweight, obesity and foot posture in children: a cross-sectional study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2017;53:33–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the foot posture index. Clin Biomech. 2006;21:89–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the foot posture index. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008;1:6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Evans AM, Copper AW, Scharfbillig RW, Scutter SD, Williams MT. Reliability of the foot posture index and traditional measures of foot position. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003;93:203–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Cranage S, Banwell H, Williams CM. Gait and lower limb observation of Paediatrics (GALLOP): development of a consensus based paediatric podiatry and physiotherapy standardised recording proforma. J Foot Ankle Res. 2016;9:8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Morrison SC, McClymont J, Price C, Nester C. Time to revise our dialogue: how flat is the paediatric flatfoot? J Foot Ankle Res. 2017;10:50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  78. McPoil T, Vicenzino B, Cornwall M, Collins N, Warren M. Reliability and normative values for the foot mobility magnitude: a composite measure of vertical and medial-lateral mobility of the midfoot. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;2:6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Barisch-Fritz B, Schmeltzpfenning T, Plank C, Grau S. Foot deformation during walking: differences between static and dynamic 3D foot morphology in developing feet. Ergonomics. 2013;56:921–33. 913pGoogle Scholar
  80. Younger AS, Sawatzky B, Dryden P. Radiographic assessment of adult flatfoot. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26:820–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Gilmour J, Burns Y. The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch in children. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:493–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Butler RJ, Hillstrom H, Song J, Richards CJ, Davis IS. Arch height index measurement system: establishment of reliability and normative values. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2008;98:102–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Pohl MB, Farr L. A comparison of foot arch measurement reliability using both digital photography and calliper methods. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement