Table 3 Summary of included studies

Abolarin et al. (2011)

[45]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Cross-sectional

To determine associated personal characteristics of flatfooted school children

Children

6–10

Nigerian

Staheli arch index

Galli et al. (2014)

[35]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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