Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Evaluation of the Usability of the Tiger Full-Foot Three-Dimensional Scanner for the Measurements of Basic Foot Dimensions in Clinical Practice

O. Laštovička, R. Cuberek, M. Janura, T. Klein

. 2022 ; 112 (2) : . [pub] 20220427

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

BACKGROUND: Foot dimension information is important both for footwear design and clinical applications. In recent years, noncontact three-dimensional (3-D) foot digitizers/scanners have become popular because they are noninvasive and are valid and reliable for most of the measures. Some of them also offer automated calculations of basic foot dimensions. We aimed to determine test-retest reliability, objectivity, and concurrent validity of the Tiger full-foot 3-D scanner and the relationship between manual measures of the medial longitudinal arch of the foot and alternative parameters obtained automatically by the scanner. METHODS: Intraclass correlation coefficients and minimal detectable change values were used to assess the reliability and objectivity of the scanner. Concurrent validity and the relationships between the arch height measures were determined by the Pearson correlation coefficient and the limits of agreement between the scanner and the caliper method. RESULTS: The relative and absolute agreement between the repeated measurements obtained by the scanner show excellent reliability and objectivity of linear measures and only good to nearly good test-retest reliability and objectivity of arch height. Correlations between the values obtained by the scanner and the caliper were generally higher in linear measures (rp ≥ 0.929). The representativeness of state of bony architecture by the soft-tissue margin of the medial foot arch demonstrates the lowest correlation among the measurements (rp ≤ 0.526). CONCLUSIONS: The Tiger full-foot 3-D scanner offers excellent reliability and objectivity in linear measures, which correspond to those obtained by the caliper method. However, values obtained by both methods should not be used interchangeably. The arch height measure is less accurate, which could limit its use in some clinical applications. Orthotists and related professions probably appreciate the scanner more than other specialists.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22025456
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20221031101042.0
007      
ta
008      
221017s2022 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.7547/20-019 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34698860
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Laštovička, Ondřej $u *Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic $u †Department of Natural Sciences in Kinanthropology, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Evaluation of the Usability of the Tiger Full-Foot Three-Dimensional Scanner for the Measurements of Basic Foot Dimensions in Clinical Practice / $c O. Laštovička, R. Cuberek, M. Janura, T. Klein
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Foot dimension information is important both for footwear design and clinical applications. In recent years, noncontact three-dimensional (3-D) foot digitizers/scanners have become popular because they are noninvasive and are valid and reliable for most of the measures. Some of them also offer automated calculations of basic foot dimensions. We aimed to determine test-retest reliability, objectivity, and concurrent validity of the Tiger full-foot 3-D scanner and the relationship between manual measures of the medial longitudinal arch of the foot and alternative parameters obtained automatically by the scanner. METHODS: Intraclass correlation coefficients and minimal detectable change values were used to assess the reliability and objectivity of the scanner. Concurrent validity and the relationships between the arch height measures were determined by the Pearson correlation coefficient and the limits of agreement between the scanner and the caliper method. RESULTS: The relative and absolute agreement between the repeated measurements obtained by the scanner show excellent reliability and objectivity of linear measures and only good to nearly good test-retest reliability and objectivity of arch height. Correlations between the values obtained by the scanner and the caliper were generally higher in linear measures (rp ≥ 0.929). The representativeness of state of bony architecture by the soft-tissue margin of the medial foot arch demonstrates the lowest correlation among the measurements (rp ≤ 0.526). CONCLUSIONS: The Tiger full-foot 3-D scanner offers excellent reliability and objectivity in linear measures, which correspond to those obtained by the caliper method. However, values obtained by both methods should not be used interchangeably. The arch height measure is less accurate, which could limit its use in some clinical applications. Orthotists and related professions probably appreciate the scanner more than other specialists.
650    _2
$a tělesná výška $7 D001827
650    12
$a noha (od hlezna dolů) $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D005528
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a dolní končetina $7 D035002
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Cuberek, Roman $u ‡Institute of Active Lifestyle, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Janura, Miroslav $u †Department of Natural Sciences in Kinanthropology, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Klein, Tomáš $u †Department of Natural Sciences in Kinanthropology, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00002975 $t Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association $x 1930-8264 $g Roč. 112, č. 2 (2022)
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34698860 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20221017 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20221031101039 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1854926 $s 1176746
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 112 $c 2 $e 20220427 $i 1930-8264 $m Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association $n J Am Podiatr Med Assoc $x MED00002975
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20221017

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...