Claire McKeone, Micah C Garcia, Jeffery A Taylor-Haas, Jason T Long, Mitchell J Rauh, Kevin R Ford, Shelby Peel, David M Bazett-Jones
{"title":"青少年的脚和成年人的脚不一样。","authors":"Claire McKeone, Micah C Garcia, Jeffery A Taylor-Haas, Jason T Long, Mitchell J Rauh, Kevin R Ford, Shelby Peel, David M Bazett-Jones","doi":"10.7547/24-045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many arch structure classification methods exist, but arch structure may be influenced by factors such as age and physical activity. It is unknown if previous arch structure classifications from adult populations are appropriate for adolescents. The purpose of our study was to compare arch structure classifications between adolescent-specific and previously published classification systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 141 uninjured adolescents who participated in long-distance running activities. We measured arch height index (AHI) for both feet in seated and standing positions and classified arch structure as cavus, rectus, or planus. We calculated kappa and percent agreement to compare arch structure classification for our participants with previously published classifications. We performed one-sample t tests to compare mean AHI values from our participants with previously published values. We performed Pearson correlation and percent agreement for arch structure classification for AHI measured in seated and standing for our participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed no to weak and unacceptable agreement (κ = -0.008 to 0.702; P < .001 to .77; 29-72%) for seated and standing AHI between our classification and most prior classifications. Our seated and standing mean AHI values differed from most prior studies (P < .001 to .99; d = 0.00-1.52). We observed a very large positive correlation (r = 0.90; P < .001) with moderate and acceptable classification agreement (κ = 0.641; P < .001; 83%) between mean AHI values measured in seated and standing positions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Arch structure classification varied based on classification system and showed poor agreement between most previously reported classification systems. Mean AHI values were significantly different for adolescent runners in our study compared with most previously reported mean values. Researchers and clinicians may classify arch structure in a seated or standing position if position-specific criteria are applied. Special care should be taken before extrapolating classification systems originating from populations with different characteristics, such as age, sport participation, and health status.</p>","PeriodicalId":17241,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association","volume":"115 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adolescent Feet Are Not Small Adult Feet.\",\"authors\":\"Claire McKeone, Micah C Garcia, Jeffery A Taylor-Haas, Jason T Long, Mitchell J Rauh, Kevin R Ford, Shelby Peel, David M Bazett-Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.7547/24-045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many arch structure classification methods exist, but arch structure may be influenced by factors such as age and physical activity. It is unknown if previous arch structure classifications from adult populations are appropriate for adolescents. The purpose of our study was to compare arch structure classifications between adolescent-specific and previously published classification systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 141 uninjured adolescents who participated in long-distance running activities. We measured arch height index (AHI) for both feet in seated and standing positions and classified arch structure as cavus, rectus, or planus. We calculated kappa and percent agreement to compare arch structure classification for our participants with previously published classifications. We performed one-sample t tests to compare mean AHI values from our participants with previously published values. We performed Pearson correlation and percent agreement for arch structure classification for AHI measured in seated and standing for our participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed no to weak and unacceptable agreement (κ = -0.008 to 0.702; P < .001 to .77; 29-72%) for seated and standing AHI between our classification and most prior classifications. Our seated and standing mean AHI values differed from most prior studies (P < .001 to .99; d = 0.00-1.52). We observed a very large positive correlation (r = 0.90; P < .001) with moderate and acceptable classification agreement (κ = 0.641; P < .001; 83%) between mean AHI values measured in seated and standing positions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Arch structure classification varied based on classification system and showed poor agreement between most previously reported classification systems. Mean AHI values were significantly different for adolescent runners in our study compared with most previously reported mean values. Researchers and clinicians may classify arch structure in a seated or standing position if position-specific criteria are applied. Special care should be taken before extrapolating classification systems originating from populations with different characteristics, such as age, sport participation, and health status.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association\",\"volume\":\"115 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7547/24-045\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7547/24-045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:弓结构的分类方法很多,但弓结构可能受到年龄、运动量等因素的影响。目前尚不清楚以前的成人弓形结构分类是否适用于青少年。我们研究的目的是比较青少年特有的弓结构分类和以前发表的分类系统。方法:选取参加长跑活动的141名未受伤青少年为研究对象。我们测量了坐姿和站立姿势时双脚的足弓高度指数(AHI),并将足弓结构分为空窝、直肌或平面。我们计算kappa和同意率,将参与者的拱形结构分类与先前发表的分类进行比较。我们进行了单样本t检验,将参与者的平均AHI值与先前公布的值进行比较。我们对参与者坐着和站立时测量的AHI进行Pearson相关性和百分比一致性的弓结构分类。结果:我们观察到坐姿和站立AHI与大多数先前分类之间没有到弱和不可接受的一致性(κ = -0.008至0.702;P < 0.001至0.77;29-72%)。我们的坐姿和站立的平均AHI值与大多数先前的研究不同(P < 0.001 ~ 0.99; d = 0.00 ~ 1.52)。我们观察到坐姿和站立位置测量的平均AHI值之间存在非常大的正相关(r = 0.90, P < .001),分类一致性中等且可接受(κ = 0.641, P < .001, 83%)。结论:不同的分类体系对弓结构的分类存在差异,以往报道的分类体系之间一致性较差。在我们的研究中,青少年跑步者的平均AHI值与之前报道的大多数平均值相比有显著差异。研究人员和临床医生可能分类弓结构在坐姿或站立的位置,如果位置特定的标准应用。在根据年龄、参加体育运动和健康状况等不同特征的人群推断分类系统之前,应特别小心。
Background: Many arch structure classification methods exist, but arch structure may be influenced by factors such as age and physical activity. It is unknown if previous arch structure classifications from adult populations are appropriate for adolescents. The purpose of our study was to compare arch structure classifications between adolescent-specific and previously published classification systems.
Methods: We enrolled 141 uninjured adolescents who participated in long-distance running activities. We measured arch height index (AHI) for both feet in seated and standing positions and classified arch structure as cavus, rectus, or planus. We calculated kappa and percent agreement to compare arch structure classification for our participants with previously published classifications. We performed one-sample t tests to compare mean AHI values from our participants with previously published values. We performed Pearson correlation and percent agreement for arch structure classification for AHI measured in seated and standing for our participants.
Results: We observed no to weak and unacceptable agreement (κ = -0.008 to 0.702; P < .001 to .77; 29-72%) for seated and standing AHI between our classification and most prior classifications. Our seated and standing mean AHI values differed from most prior studies (P < .001 to .99; d = 0.00-1.52). We observed a very large positive correlation (r = 0.90; P < .001) with moderate and acceptable classification agreement (κ = 0.641; P < .001; 83%) between mean AHI values measured in seated and standing positions.
Conclusions: Arch structure classification varied based on classification system and showed poor agreement between most previously reported classification systems. Mean AHI values were significantly different for adolescent runners in our study compared with most previously reported mean values. Researchers and clinicians may classify arch structure in a seated or standing position if position-specific criteria are applied. Special care should be taken before extrapolating classification systems originating from populations with different characteristics, such as age, sport participation, and health status.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, the official journal of the Association, is the oldest and most frequently cited peer-reviewed journal in the profession of foot and ankle medicine. Founded in 1907 and appearing 6 times per year, it publishes research studies, case reports, literature reviews, special communications, clinical correspondence, letters to the editor, book reviews, and various other types of submissions. The Journal is included in major indexing and abstracting services for biomedical literature.