advertising
-
1.
Nirenberg MS. Forensic methods and the podiatric physician. JAPMA 79: 247, 1989.
-
2.
Vernon DW. & McCourt FJ. Forensic podiatry—a review and definition. Br J Podiatry 2: 45, 1999.
-
3.
Plymouth University, Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, Programme Specification, BSc (Hons) Podiatry (January 2013). Available at: https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/9/9960/BSc__Hons__Podiatry_Programme_Specification_6141.pdf Accessed January 28, 2019.
-
4.
Vernon DW. , DiMaggio JA : Forensic Podiatry: Principles and Methods , 2nd ed, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2017.
-
5.
Krishan K. , Kanchan T. & DiMaggio JA. Emergence of forensic podiatry—a novel sub-discipline of forensic sciences. Forensic Sci Int 255: 16, 2015.
-
6.
Vernon DW. The development and practice of forensic podiatry. J Clin Forensic Med 13: 284, 2006.
-
7.
Kagan B. Forensic podiatry. Podiatr Manage 2015: 141, 2015.
-
8.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (United States Supreme Court, 1993).
-
9.
Hamilton J: Scottish Murders: From Burke and Hare to Peter Tobin, Waverly Books, Santa Monica, CA, 2013.
-
10.
Burrow JG. , Kelly HD. & Francis BE. Forensic podiatry—an overview. Forensic Sci Crim Invest 1: 6, 2017.
-
11.
Vanderkolk J: Forensic Comparative Science: Qualitative Quantitative Source Determination of Unique Impressions, Images, and Objects, Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2009.
-
12.
Moenssens AA. , Henderson CE. , Portwood SP : Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases , 5th Ed, Foundation Press, St. Paul, MN, 2007.
-
13.
Bouchrika I. “Evidence Evaluation of Gait Biometrics for Forensic Investigation, ” in Multimedia Forensic and Security , edited by Hassanien, AE , Fouad, MM & Manaf, AA et al, p 307, Springer, New York, 2017.
-
14.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (United States Supreme Court, 1997).
-
15.
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (United States Supreme Court, 1999).
-
16.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1923).
-
17.
Adam C: Forensic Evidence in Court: Evaluation and Scientific Opinion, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2016.
-
18.
Crown Prosecution Service. Guidance on expert evidence. Available at: http://ukafn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Expert-Evidence-First-edition-2014.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
19.
Forensic Science Regulator: Guidance: cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510147/217_FSR-G-217_Cognitive_bias_appendix.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
20.
Dror IE. Biases in forensic experts. Science 360: 243, 2018.
-
21.
Kukucka J. , Kassin CM. & Zapf PA. et al.: Cognitive bias and blindness: a global survey of forensic science examiners. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 6: 452, 2017.
-
22.
Budowle B. , Bottrell MC. & Bunch SG. et al.: A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. J Forensic Sci 54: 798, 2009.
-
23.
Zapf PA. & Dror IE. Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: lessons from forensic science. Int J Forensic Ment Health 16: 227, 2017.
-
24.
National Research Council: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009.
-
25.
Edmond G. , Martire K. & San Roque M. Expert reports and the forensic sciences. UNSW L J 40: 6, 2017.
-
26.
Executive Office of the President of the United States, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology: Report to the president: forensic science in criminal courts. Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
27.
US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General: A review of the FBI's handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Available at: https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0601/final.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
28.
The Joint Commission: Quick safety 28: cognitive biases in health care. https://www.jointcommission.org/resources/news-and-multimedia/newsletters/newsletters/quick-safety/quick-safety-28/. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
29.
Satya-Murti S. & Lockhart J. Recognizing and reducing cognitive bias in clinical and forensic neurology. Neurol Clin Pract 5: 389, 2015.
-
30.
O'Sullivan ED. & Schofield SJ. Cognitive bias in clinical medicine. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 48: 225, 2018.
-
31.
Saposnik G. , Redelmeier D. & Ruff CC. et al.: Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 16: 138, 2016.
-
32.
Graber ML. , Gordon R. & Franklin N. Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what's the goal? Acad Med 77: 981, 2002.
-
33.
Bhatti A. Cognitive bias in clinical practice—nurturing healthy skepticism among medical students. Adv Med Educ Pract 9: 235, 2018.
-
34.
Spaun NA. , Vorder Bruegge RW : “Forensic Identification of People from Images and Video,” in 2008 IEEE Second International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (29 Sept.–1 Oct. 2008). Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4699363/citations#citations. Accessed November 11, 2018.
-
35.
Smith L. & Bond J. Criminal Justice and Forensic Science: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Palgrave, London, 2015.
-
36.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guideline [NG19]: diabetic foot problems: prevention and management. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng19. Accessed January 28, 2019.
-
37.
Kronz JD. , Westra WH. & Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 86: 2426, 1999.
-
38.
Payne VL. , Singh H. & Meyer AN. et al.: Patient-initiated second opinions: systematic review of characteristics and impact on diagnosis, treatment, and satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc 89: 687, 2014.
-
39.
Meyer AN. , Singh H. & Graber ML. Evaluation of outcomes from a national patient-initiated second-opinion program. Am J Med 128: 1138, 2015.
-
40.
Forensic Science Regulator: Draft Forensic Gait Analysis Code of Practice (2018 Consultation Draft). Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720883/2018_Forensic_Gait_Analysis_Consultation_Draft.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
41.
Shimizu T. , Matsumoto K. & Tokuda Y. Effects of the use of differential diagnosis checklist and general de-biasing checklist on diagnostic performance in comparison to intuitive diagnosis. Med Teach 35: e1218, 2013.
-
42.
Ely JW. , Graber ML. & Croskerry P. Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Acad Med 86: 307, 2011.
-
43.
Graber ML. , Sorensen AV. & Biswas J. et al.: Developing checklists to prevent diagnostic error in emergency room settings. Diagnosis 1: 223, 2014.
-
44.
Mamede S. & Schmidt HG. Reflection in medical diagnosis: a literature review. Health Prof Educ 3: 15, 2017.
-
45.
Health and Care Professions Council. Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. Available at: https://www.hcpc-uk.org/standards/standards-of-conduct-performance-and-ethics/. Accessed November 11, 2018.
-
46.
Forensic Science Regulator: Codes of practice and conduct for forensic science providers and practitioners in the Criminal Justice System. Available at: https://vdocuments.us/pdfcodes-of-practice-and-conduct-welcome-to-govuk-of-the-firearms-act-1982.html. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
47.
Gibbard LC. The interpretation of wear marks on shoes as an aid to the diagnosis of foot troubles: part 2. Br Chirop J 23: 259, 1958.
-
48.
Hanby JH. , Walker HE : The Principles of Chiropody, Bailliere, Tindall and Cox, London, 1949.
-
49.
Anderson EG. & Black JA. “Examination and Assessment,” in Common Foot Disorders: Diagnosis and Management , 5th Ed, edited by Lorimer, D , French, G & West, S et al, Churchill Livingstone, New York, 1998.
-
50.
Robbins LM. Making tracks. Law Enforc Commun 12: 14, 1984.
-
51.
Vernon DW: The Functional Analysis of Shoe Wear Patterns: Theory and Application [thesis]. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, England, 2000. Available at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/3106/2/10702939.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
52.
Vernon DW. , Parry A. & Potter M. A theory of shoe wear pattern influence incorporating a new paradigm for the podiatric medical profession. JAPMA 94: 261, 2004.
-
53.
Hofer TP. , Asch SM. & Hayward RA. et al.: Profiling quality of care: is there a role for peer review? BMC Health Serv Res 4: 9, 2004.
-
54.
National Court Rules Committee. Rule 702—Testimony by Expert Witnesses. Available at: https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vii/rule-702/. Accessed May 20, 2019.
-
55.
Edwards MT. In pursuit of quality and safety: an 8-year study of clinical peer review best practices in US hospitals. Int J Qual Health Care 30: 602, 2018.
-
56.
Haines ST. , Ammann RR. & Beehrle-Hobbs D. et al.: Protected professional practice evaluation: a continuous quality-improvement process. Am J Health Syst Pharm 67: 1933, 2010.
-
57.
Janos A. What's a “shoe autopsy”? A forensic podiatrist explains the value of foot evidence in solving crimes. A&E Real Crime. Available at: https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/forensic-podiatry-interview-foot-evidence-footprints-crime-solving. Accessed October 28, 2018.
-
58.
Nirenberg M. Gait, footprints, and footwear: how forensic podiatry can identify criminals. Police Chief, 2016. Available at: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/gait-footprints-and-footwear-how-forensic-podiatry-can-identify-criminals/. Accessed November 10, 2018.
-
59.
Nirenberg M. Footprint evidence principles for crime scene technicians. Northwest Indiana Law Enforcement Personnel, Munster, IN, February 28, 2015.
-
60.
DiMaggio JA. & Vernon DW. “Bare Footprint Identification,” in Forensic Podiatry, p 51, Humana Press, New York, 2010.
-
61.
Chuckpaiwong B. , Nunley JA. & Queen RM. Correlation between static foot type measurements and clinical assessments. Foot Ankle Int 30: 205, 2009.
-
62.
Queen R. , Mall N. & Hardaker W. et al.: Describing the medial longitudinal arch using footprint indices and a clinical grading system. Foot Ankle Int 28: 456, 2007.
-
63.
Dudkiewicz I. , Levi R. & Blankstein A. et al.: Dynamic footprints: adjuvant method for postoperative assessment of patients after calcaneal fractures. Isr Med Assoc J 4: 349, 2002.
-
64.
Menz HB. Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. JAPMA 88: 119, 1998.
-
65.
Atkinson-Smith C. & Betts RP. The relationship between footprints, foot pressure distribution, rearfoot motion and foot function in runners. Foot 2: 148, 1992.
-
66.
Welton EA. The Harris and Beath footprint: interpretation and clinical value. Foot Ankle 13: 462, 1992.
-
67.
Billis E. , Katsakiori E. & Kapodistrias C. et al.: Assessment of foot posture: correlation between different clinical techniques. Foot 17: 65, 2007.
-
68.
El O. , Akcali O. & Kosay C. et al.: Flexible flatfoot and related factors in primary school children: a report of a screening study. Rheum Int 26: 1050, 2006.
-
69.
Wrobel JS. & Armstrong DG. Reliability and validity of current physical examination techniques of the foot and ankle. JAPMA 98: 197, 2008.
-
70.
Esterman A. & Pilotto L. Foot shape and its effect on functioning in Royal Australian Air Force recruits. Part 1: prospective cohort study. Mil Med 170: 623, 2005.
-
71.
Nikolaidou ME. & Boudolos KD. A footprint-based approach for the rational classification of foot types in young schoolchildren. Foot 16: 82, 2006.
-
72.
Rai DV. & Aggarwal LM. The study of plantar pressure distribution in normal and pathological foot. Pol J Med Phys Eng 12: 25, 2006.
-
73.
Menz HB. & Morris ME. Clinical determinants of plantar forces and pressures during walking in older people. Gait Posture 24: 229, 2006.
-
74.
DeBerardinis J. , Mohamed T. & Dufek JS. Review of foot plantar pressure—focus on the development of foot ulcerations. Open Access J Sci Technol 4: 1, 2015.
-
75.
Fascione JM. , Crews RT. & Wrobel JS. Association of footprint measurements with plantar kinetics: a linear regression model. JAPMA 104: 125, 2014.
-
76.
Cowan DN. , Jones BH. & Robinson JR. Foot morphologic characteristics and risk of exercise-related injury. Arch Fam Med 2: 773, 1993.
-
77.
Vernon DW. The use of chiropody/podiatry records in forensic and mass disaster identification. J Forensic Ident 44: 26, 1994.
-
78.
Doney IE. & Harris PHG. Mass disaster identification. Can chiropodists help? Police Surg 25: 14, 1984.
-
79.
Sanger D. & Vernon DW. Value of a strength scale in identification from podiatry records. J Forensic Ident 47: 162, 1997.
-
80.
Nirenberg M. , Vernon DW. & Birch I. A review of the historical use and criticisms of gait analysis evidence. Sci Justice 58: 292, 2018.
-
81.
Vernon DW. The potential of podiatry records in forensic and mass disaster identification, Unpublished BSc (Hons) project, 1990.
-
82.
Birch I. , Vernon W. & Walker J. et al.: Terminology and forensic gait analysis. Sci Justice 55: 279, 2015.
-
83.
Birch I. , Birch M. & Rutler L. et al.: The repeatability and reproducibility of the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool. Sci Justice 59: 544, 2019.
-
84.
Green J. , Willis K. & Hughes E. et al.: Generating best evidence from qualitative research: the role of data analysis. Aust N Z J Public Health 31: 545, 2007.
-
85.
Browne T. , Curran M. & Vernon D. How useful is thematic analysis as an elicitation technique for analyzing video of human gait in forensic podiatry? J Forensic Ident 65: 999, 2015.
-
86.
Birch I. , Ray L. & Christou A. et al.: The reliability of suspect recognition based on gait analysis from CCTV footage. Sci Justice 53: 339, 2013.
-
87.
Birch I. , Vernon W. & Walker J. et al.: The development of a tool for assessing the quality of closed circuit camera footage for use in forensic gait analysis. J Forensic Leg Med 20: 915, 2013.
-
88.
Policy and Standards Department, Health and Care Professions Council, London. Standards of proficiency: chiropodists/podiatrists, 2013. Available at: http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10000DBBStandards_of_Proficiency_Chiropodists/. Accessed November 10, 2018.
The Application of Forensic Podiatry to Clinical Practice
Search for other papers by Michael S. Nirenberg in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jai Saxelby in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rachel Vernon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wesley Vernon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The practice of the clinical podiatrist traditionally focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions of the foot, ankle, and related structures of the leg. Clinical podiatrists are expected to be mindful of “the principles and applications of scientific enquiry.” This includes the evaluation of treatment efficacy and the research process. In contrast, the forensic podiatrist specializes in the analysis of foot-, ankle-, and gait-related evidence in the context of the criminal justice system. Although forensic podiatry is a separate, specialized field, many aspects of this discipline can be useful in the clinical treatment and management of foot and ankle problems. The authors, who are forensic podiatrists, contend that the clinical podiatrist can gain significant insights from the field of forensic podiatry. This article aims to provide clinical podiatrists with an overview of the principles and methods that have been tested and applied by forensic podiatrists in their practice, and suggests that the clinical practice of the nonforensic foot practitioner may benefit from such knowledge.
advertising
advertising
