advertising
-
1.
Underwood, M . :Diagnosis and management of gout. .BMJ 332::1315. ,2006. .
-
2.
Dalbeth, N, B Clark, K Gregory, et al. :Mechanisms of bone erosion in gout: a quantitative analysis using plain radiography and computed tomography. .Ann Rheum Dis 68::1290. ,2009. .
-
3.
Dalbeth, N, J Collis, K Gregory, et al. :Tophaceous joint disease strongly predicts hand function in patients with gout. .Rheumatology 46.:1804. ,2007. .
-
4.
Gurney, JK, UG Kersting, and D Rosenbaum. :Between-day reliability of repeated plantar pressure distribution measurements in a normal population. .Gait Posture 27::706. ,2008. .
-
5.
Turner, DE, PS Helliwell, KL Siegel, et al. :Biomechanics of the foot in rheumatoid arthritis: identifying abnormal function and the factors associated with localised disease “impact.”. Clin Biomech 23::93. ,2009. .
-
6.
Woodburn, J and PS Helliwell. :Relation between heel position and the distribution of forefoot plantar pressures and skin callosities in rheumatoid arthritis. .Ann Rheum Dis 55::806. ,1996. .
-
7.
Vidmar, G and P Novak. :Reliability of in-shoe plantar pressure measurements in rheumatoid arthritis patients. .Int J Rehabil Res 32::36. ,2009. .
-
8.
van der Leeden, M, M Steultjens, JH Dekker, et al. :Forefoot joint damage, pain and disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients with foot complaints: the role of plantar pressure and gait characteristics. .Rheumatology 45::465. ,2006. .
-
9.
Firth, J, D Turner, W Smith, et al. :The validity and reliability of PressureStat for measuring plantar foot pressures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. .Clin Biomech 22::603. ,2007. .
-
10.
Schwartz, MH, JP Trost, and RA Wervey. :Measurement and management of errors in quantitative gait data. .Gait Posture 20::196. ,2004. .
-
11.
Deschamps, K, I Birch, J McInnes, et al. :Inter- and intra-observer reliability of masking in plantar pressure measurement analysis. .Gait Posture 30::379. ,2007. .
-
12.
Cavanagh, PR, MM Rodgers, and A Iiboshi. :Pressure distribution under symptom-free feet during barefoot standing. .Foot Ankle Int 7::262. ,1987. .
-
13.
Zammit, GV, HB Menz, SE Munteanu, et al. :Plantar pressure distribution in older people with osteoarthritis of the first metatarsophangeal joint (hallux limitus/ rigidus). .J Orthop Res 26::1665. ,2008. .
-
14.
DeCock, De, D Clercq, T Willems, et al. :Temporal characteristics of foot roll-over during barefoot jogging: reference data for young adults. .Gait Posture 21::432. ,2005. .
-
15.
Wallace, SL, H Robinson, AT Masi, et al. :Preliminary criteria for the classification of the acute arthritis of primary gout. .Arthritis Rheum 20::895. ,1977. .
-
16.
Cavanagh, PR and JS Ulbrecht. :Clinical plantar pressure measurement in diabetes: rationale and methodology. .Foot 4::123. ,1992. .
-
17.
Hennig, EM and D Rosenbaum. :Pressure distribution patterns under the feet of children in comparison with adults. .Foot Ankle Int 11::306. ,1991. .
-
18.
Bacarin, TA, IC Sacco, and EM Hennig. :Plantar pressure distribution patterns during gait in diabetic neuropathy patients with a history of foot ulcers. .Clinics (São Paulo) 64::113. ,2009. .
-
19.
Shrout, PE and JL Fleiss. :Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. .Statist Methods Med Res 7::301. ,1998. .
-
20.
Bland, J and D Altman. :Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. .Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 22::85. ,2003. .
-
21.
McPoil, T, B Vicenzino, M Cornwall, et al. :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 2::6. ,2009. .
-
22.
Ota, S, SR Ward, YJ Chen, et al. :Concurrent criterion-related validity and reliability of a clinical device used to assess lateral patellar displacement. .J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36::645. ,2006. .
-
23.
Rome, K and N Hanchard. :Within-day reliability of gait parameters associated with rheumatoid arthritis. .Musculoskeletal Care 3::17. ,2005. .
Evaluating Intratester Reliability of Manual Masking of Plantar Pressure Measurements Associated with Chronic Gout
Search for other papers by Keith Rome in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by David George Survepalli in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Rheumatology, Greenlane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Search for other papers by Maria Lobo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Auckland Medical School, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand.
Search for other papers by Nicola Dalbeth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Auckland Medical School, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand.
Search for other papers by Fiona McQueen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Peter J. McNair in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background:
Plantar pressure measurements are commonly used to evaluate foot function in chronic musculoskeletal conditions. However, manually identifying anatomical landmarks is a source of measurement error and can produce unreliable data. The aim of this study was to evaluate intratester reliability associated with manual masking of plantar pressure measurements in patients with gout.
Methods:
Twenty-five patients with chronic gout (mean disease duration, 22 years) were recruited from rheumatology outpatient clinics. Patients were excluded if they were experiencing an acute gout flare at the time of assessment, had lower-limb amputation, or had diabetes mellitus. Manual masking of peak plantar pressures and pressure-time integrals under ten regions of the foot were undertaken on two occasions on the same day using an in-shoe pressure measurement system. Test-retest reliability was assessed by using intraclass correlation coefficients, SEM, 95% limits of agreement, and minimal detectable change.
Results:
Mean peak pressure intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.92 to 0.97, with SEM of 8% to 14%. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from−150.3 to 133.5 kPa, and the minimal detectable change ranged from 30.8 to 80.6 kPa. For pressure-time integrals, intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.86 to 0.94, and SEM were 5% to 29%, with the greater errors observed under the toes. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from −48.5 to 48.8 kPa/sec, and the minimal detectable change ranged from 6.8 to 21.0 kPa/sec.
Conclusions:
These findings provide clinicians with information confirming the errors associated with manual masking of plantar pressure measurements in patients with gout. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 101(5): 424–429, 2011)
advertising
