Harris印记指数、Chippaux-Smirak指数、Staheli指数与距骨-第一跖骨角对足弓筛查的诊断准确性比较

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION
Siranya Paecharoen, Marut Arunakul, Nuttharat Tantivangphaisal
{"title":"Harris印记指数、Chippaux-Smirak指数、Staheli指数与距骨-第一跖骨角对足弓筛查的诊断准确性比较","authors":"Siranya Paecharoen,&nbsp;Marut Arunakul,&nbsp;Nuttharat Tantivangphaisal","doi":"10.5535/arm.23015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of the Harris imprint index (HII), Chippaux-Smirak index (CSI), and Staheli index (SI) compared with the talar-first metatarsal angle.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data was collected at the orthotic and prosthetic clinic, Thammasat University Hospital from January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2020. The three footprints were measured by the rehabilitation physician and the orthotist. The talar-first metatarsal angle was measured by the foot and ankle orthopaedist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The data from 198 patients with 274 feet was analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy of the footprint triad showed that CSI was the most accurate in pes planus prediction, followed by HII and SI (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]=0.73, 0.68, 0.68, respectively). In pes cavus, HII was the most accurate, followed by SI and CSI (AUROC=0.71, 0.61, 0.60, respectively). For pes planus, the intra-observer reliability by Cohen's Kappa was 0.92 for HII, 0.97 for CSI, and 0.93 for SI, the inter-observer reliability 0.82, 0.85, and 0.70, respectively. For pes cavus, the intra-observer reliability was 0.89 for HII, 0.95 for CSI, and 0.79 for SI, inter-observer reliability of 0.76, 0.77, and 0.66, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The accuracy of HII, CSI, and SI was fair in screening of pes planus and pes cavus. The intra- and inter-observer reliability were in the moderate to almost perfect range by Cohen's Kappa.</p>","PeriodicalId":47738,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM","volume":"47 3","pages":"222-227"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a5/91/arm-23015.PMC10326398.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Accuracy of Harris Imprint Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Staheli Index Compared With Talar-First Metatarsal Angle for Screening Arch of Foot.\",\"authors\":\"Siranya Paecharoen,&nbsp;Marut Arunakul,&nbsp;Nuttharat Tantivangphaisal\",\"doi\":\"10.5535/arm.23015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of the Harris imprint index (HII), Chippaux-Smirak index (CSI), and Staheli index (SI) compared with the talar-first metatarsal angle.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data was collected at the orthotic and prosthetic clinic, Thammasat University Hospital from January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2020. The three footprints were measured by the rehabilitation physician and the orthotist. The talar-first metatarsal angle was measured by the foot and ankle orthopaedist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The data from 198 patients with 274 feet was analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy of the footprint triad showed that CSI was the most accurate in pes planus prediction, followed by HII and SI (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]=0.73, 0.68, 0.68, respectively). In pes cavus, HII was the most accurate, followed by SI and CSI (AUROC=0.71, 0.61, 0.60, respectively). For pes planus, the intra-observer reliability by Cohen's Kappa was 0.92 for HII, 0.97 for CSI, and 0.93 for SI, the inter-observer reliability 0.82, 0.85, and 0.70, respectively. For pes cavus, the intra-observer reliability was 0.89 for HII, 0.95 for CSI, and 0.79 for SI, inter-observer reliability of 0.76, 0.77, and 0.66, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The accuracy of HII, CSI, and SI was fair in screening of pes planus and pes cavus. The intra- and inter-observer reliability were in the moderate to almost perfect range by Cohen's Kappa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47738,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM\",\"volume\":\"47 3\",\"pages\":\"222-227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/a5/91/arm-23015.PMC10326398.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.23015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.23015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较Harris压印指数(HII)、Chippaux-Smirak指数(CSI)和Staheli指数(SI)与距首跖角的诊断准确性和可靠性。方法:数据收集于2016年1月1日至2020年8月31日在法政大学医院矫形和假肢诊所进行。这三个脚印由康复医生和矫形师测量。由足踝骨科医生测量距第一跖骨角。结果:分析了198例274足患者的数据。足印三联征的诊断准确度显示,CSI对平足的预测准确度最高,其次是HII和SI(受试者工作特征曲线下面积[AUROC]分别=0.73、0.68、0.68)。在凹足中,HII最准确,其次是SI和CSI (AUROC分别为0.71,0.61,0.60)。对于平面pes, Cohen's Kappa对HII、CSI和SI的观察者内信度分别为0.92、0.97和0.93,观察者间信度分别为0.82、0.85和0.70。对于弓形虫,HII的观察者内信度为0.89,CSI为0.95,SI为0.79,观察者间信度分别为0.76,0.77和0.66。结论:HII、CSI、SI对平足、足弓足的筛查准确性较好。根据Cohen’s Kappa,观察者内部和观察者之间的信度处于中等到近乎完美的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Diagnostic Accuracy of Harris Imprint Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Staheli Index Compared With Talar-First Metatarsal Angle for Screening Arch of Foot.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Harris Imprint Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Staheli Index Compared With Talar-First Metatarsal Angle for Screening Arch of Foot.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Harris Imprint Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Staheli Index Compared With Talar-First Metatarsal Angle for Screening Arch of Foot.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Harris Imprint Index, Chippaux-Smirak Index, Staheli Index Compared With Talar-First Metatarsal Angle for Screening Arch of Foot.

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of the Harris imprint index (HII), Chippaux-Smirak index (CSI), and Staheli index (SI) compared with the talar-first metatarsal angle.

Methods: Data was collected at the orthotic and prosthetic clinic, Thammasat University Hospital from January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2020. The three footprints were measured by the rehabilitation physician and the orthotist. The talar-first metatarsal angle was measured by the foot and ankle orthopaedist.

Results: The data from 198 patients with 274 feet was analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy of the footprint triad showed that CSI was the most accurate in pes planus prediction, followed by HII and SI (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]=0.73, 0.68, 0.68, respectively). In pes cavus, HII was the most accurate, followed by SI and CSI (AUROC=0.71, 0.61, 0.60, respectively). For pes planus, the intra-observer reliability by Cohen's Kappa was 0.92 for HII, 0.97 for CSI, and 0.93 for SI, the inter-observer reliability 0.82, 0.85, and 0.70, respectively. For pes cavus, the intra-observer reliability was 0.89 for HII, 0.95 for CSI, and 0.79 for SI, inter-observer reliability of 0.76, 0.77, and 0.66, respectively.

Conclusion: The accuracy of HII, CSI, and SI was fair in screening of pes planus and pes cavus. The intra- and inter-observer reliability were in the moderate to almost perfect range by Cohen's Kappa.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
32
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信