Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Additions To Biomechanical Diagnosis Technique by The Arena Members in 2012

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by drsha, Dec 31, 2011.

  1. drsha

    drsha Banned


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Additions To Biomechanical Diagnosis Technique by The Arena Members in 2011

    Here is one more annual monitor to add to "Quotes of The Year"

    Let's all put down additions that we have made to our ability to diagnose Biomechanically in 2011

    1. Diagnosing The PreDiabetic Foot...
    Dennis Shaveson, DPM
    2. The Biomechanics of Toenail Dystrophy...
    Dennis Shavelson, DPM
    3. Functional Diagnosis of Peroneus Longus Weakness...
    Dennis Shavelson, DPM
     
  2. I learned to diagnose osteosarcoma by observing skin striations on the pulp of the first toe.
     
  3. I learned to diagnose osteosarcoma by observing skin striations on the pulp of the first toe. ;)
     
  4. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Was this an addition to diagnosis proposed or discovered by you or another member of The Arena, If not, Fail.

    Dennis
     
  5. Neither. I was trying to make a point in a roundabout way.

    In a direct terms, I was making the point that any diagnostic test must be validated to be, well, valid. Being a sensible person, your initial response should have been "bollix". You should be skeptical about any such claim. To diagnose osteosarcoma with skin striations would be impossible.

    My hope was that asking such questions of me would help you realise why other people ask those questions of you!

    The pre-diabetic foot is not a term I've come across. Thus I'd guess it's one you've coined and a "diagnosis" you yourself defined. In which case, that's not really a diagnosis.

    In the nicest possible way, what's this thread for Dennis? It looks a lot like an attempt at showing off to me!
     
  6. drsha

    drsha Banned

    .

    Dennis:
    We see things so differently and you are defining it so well.

    I saw your comment as needing investigation but up until then, I trusted your postings as reputable (Newton Avatar and all?).

    I trusted you enough to believe that this is something that you learned and was willing to share with us.

    In reality, Robert, you do not know if osteogenic sarcoma could not be associated with increased skin striations.
    Perhaps you or the fictitious source you referenced in order to get me and I assume others to believe you are on to something.

    With an open mind to your reporting, I summized that OS is an inflammatory process and perhaps the swelling and increased heat of the disease would cause a more rapid maturation of the skin cells over the area and since OS is often over or near joint surfaces and not midshaft type tumors, perhaps the increased tissue stress of the skin topography may cause changes in striation that when seen might by skilled practitioners might be a tip-off to R/O OS?

    This means that in the future, unfortunately, I will never know when you are publishing something you actually do not think, feel or theorize or have tested to be correct or that in fact without any preparation or good intention are momentarily disowning your scientific core in order to "prove some point".

    Maybe that's what The Arena is doing with FFT, MASS, Sagittal Plane Blockade and other competitive thoughts and theories since so many of your posts about these subjects make no sense and reflect so little knowledge and interest in these same subjects.
    Recently Eric stated in print that he knew as much about FFT as I did?

    You good, kind, well meaning sir, are no longer a trusted scientist in my mind.
    When out to prove some point you are willing to sacrifice your reputation in doing so.

    The saddest piece is that Kevin, Craig, Spooner, Wedemeyer, Mr. Smith and none of the other Arena Members said "Bollix" either about your OS listing meaning that they still trust your reputation as I did BUT
    I wonder what would have happened if I wrote it?

    Dennis:
    The pre-diabetic foot is a diagnostic theory that there are precursors to diabetes (such as peripheral neuropathy, small vessel disease, weight gain, dietary habits, activity habits, etc) that often precede the existence of both DM and her associated feet.

    My purpose Robert is to expose on an annual basis how little The Arena adds to diagnostic procedures when it comes to Biomechanics as it stifles free thought of opposing views that may be poised to revolutionize the subject
    (and you were willing to damage your reputation to do so).

    Dennis
     
  7. Its Karl Marx actually ;)

    And there, you have hit an important nail on the head.

    Kevin Craig etc, if they are even bothering with this thread, did not reply because they knew I had my tongue in my cheek! The ;) at the end of the post was a clue to that.

    That you think that they did not tear me a new A*** because it was me is a shame, because the truth is, that is exactly what would have happened if I made such a preposterous claim without evidence. Perhaps you don't follow other threads, but we disagree rather violently on stuff, rather often. All the time in fact. Always the demand for evidence. For an eg, check out the recent forefoot varus thread.

    I'll live with that ;). But if this thread has cured you of believing a claim based only on who is making it then I've done you a large favour!
    Your purpose was fairly clear from the 3 similar threads you have created. Although the fact that you first listed YOUR "achievements" suggests that your purpose as stated above could be suffixed by "compared to me".

    Here's the thing. There are two parts to science. The sexy bit, the bit which most people want to do, and the bit which the GU think of as science, is discovering stuff. New conditions, new tests, new data. The not sexy, but equally important bit is the opposite, disproving things which are NOT true.

    We do both here. But there are always 10 parts error for 1 part truth so you will always see more of that. One cannot simply accept every theory! There are too many and many are muturally exclusive.

    You, to your mind, have made "advances". You have described patterns you have observed and shared treatment methods you have found success with. That's great, but its not science. The web heaves with people who have described patterns they have observed and stated treatment methods they found success with, in biomechanics and every other field. You, I'm sure, don't believe everything you read, and nor should you. You should not take my word for anything, and Neither do / should we.

    Here's something to mull Dennis, because I do think you are worth the effort.

    On what basis should a proposed model be tested. How do YOU decide, and believe we should decide, which theories are true, and which are false. We've established I hope that respect for the person forwarding it is a poor way to judge a theory. What else would you recommend?
     
  8. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Dennis:
    I am here to parley, banter and debate with scientists and not to learn the meaning of "Smiles"
    As I will always question in my mind whether your tongue is in your cheek, you are less respected by me as a scientist until you prove otherwise.

    Dennis:
    I stand fast to the notion that statements that I make, had they come from someone else, would be judged differently on The Arena.
    I am not asking you to cure me, only share biomechanics with me.

    Dennis:
    1. Whose "achievements should I list?
    2. In Level I-II Evidence I stated that I had added none!
    That is a very low bar to set for a "compared to me".

    Dennis:
    I enjoy my visits to The Arena but wouldn't want to live here as you state, sort of agreeing with my premise, you dwell more on proving things wrong than in developing and fostering new stuff, conditions, tests, data, etc.
    Even worse, your bias towards tissue stress has you selecting evidence, stuff, conditions, tests, data, etc. that supports tissue stress.
    Notice how Dananberg, Shavelson, Glaser et al add not even one single positive thing to the mix (maybe Howard second handedly but since he IMHO is the most correct biomechanist in my lifetime, not Root or Kevin, he deserves more from you all).

    Dennis:
    This is a universal truth for us all, yourself included and is put in to make your case seem stronger right?

    Dennis:
    I think one should start with an open mind and a foundational knowledge of the subject at hand.
    These are two things that have never been afforded FFTing on The Arena.

    Finally, you are all correct when you state that there is no BioArchitecture in Biomechanics.
    This has led me to revisit the name of the science I practice and I am hoping this to be one of the accomplishments I will be able to list next year.

    Dennis
     
  9. Because you never answer questions and nowhere is there a peer reviewed paper with easy to understand pictures of the foot types and what casting technique you should use with each foot type and what device should be prescribed.

    So people get sick of looking for something that is imo not there, in reading you posts over the last few years is is clearer that you change much of what you write re FFT depending on which way the wind blows which gives the impression that you are just making it up as you go.

    Anybody who promotes a treatment program especially if the program has a new language is not based on scientific principles of mechanics with " I am telling " you will always get drawn over the coals.

    So if you want FFT to be taken seriously get published in a peer reviewed Scientific journal.
     
  10. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Dennis we did start with an open mind. I read your patent wanting to see if there was something there. After fairly evaluating it I concluded you have about a third of a paradigm. You take some measurements, that's one third. You don't say how those measurements correlate with foot pain. You don't say how your measurements change your treatment.

    I have read everything available to me written on the subject. That is why I can confidently say that I know as much about you in regards to functional foot typing. If there were more you would have written it. It would have been so much more valuable use of your time than pleading with us to examine it or calling us close minded. So please, please, pretty please, stop asking us to give it a fair evaluation until you've written more.

    I don't think I said that. Biomechanics does take into account structure. It's like that picture of the building that fell over. Giving names to the various structures does not help you understand why they stand up or fall down.

    Eric
     
  11. You're wrong.
     
  12. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    How did my name get in this, simply because I disagree with nearly everything you have to say about biomechanics Dennis? I cannot add much to what Robert, Mike and Eric have written and I'm not certain that I deserve to be uttered in the same company biomechanically.

    What I can add is that after reviewing what little Dennis offered to me in his DVD's it left me wanting. Specifically, as Eric points out there is no correlation between identifying FFT types and pathology/modifications/manufacturing whatsoever. Remember morphology does not equate well to pathology Dennis, that has been proven ad nauseum.

    If there is such a link kindly present it Dennis and let's be done with this constant negative energy you put into deriding others as "biomechanically impotent, inept and unqualified" when you cannot cogently explain anything beyond the basic FFT exam. Is that all that you've got? I thought so, end of discussion.

    I fear you are not as interested in furthering biomechanics as you are leaving a legacy and pleasing your expansive ego. I really am not sure its about the almighty dollar anymore is it Dennis? Half of the time we're not even certain what in God's name you are talking about and it is your job to clarify this, not ours.

    Now leave me alone Dennis I have much better things to do than volley your latest insecurities back onto your lunatic side of the court (this includes posting and stalking me on other sites). ;)
     
  13. drsha

    drsha Banned

    All of the rest stated and appreciated, have any Members of The Arena added Diagnostic Technique to The Biomechanics Arena?

    Perhaps we can expand it to include (as Robert appropriately removed one of mine) additions or upgrades to existing Diagnostic Techniques?

    Dennis
     
  14. I thought this one was very important.

    Spooner SK, Smith DK, Kirby KA. In-shoe pressure measurement and foot orthosis research: a giant leap forward or a step too far? J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2010;100(6):518-529.

    Very important paper indeed.

    Personally, my big epiphany was the "interface axis". The concept that when the foot is weight bearing, it rotates around an interface axis between the foot and the ground, NOT around the Sub Talar joint axis. Depends of course on what we are looking at the foot relative to and whether we're considering the foot as the "body", considering it as a multisegmented "body" or something else. Its still circling my hindbrain and will need a lot of work before it is a proper model, but I think there is something of value there. It changed my thinking in terms of how ORFs work and answered some real problems I've had with SALRE.

    But its nowhere near ready, and even further from being published, even if it turns out to have any value! It could be that I'm entirely wrong and that I've simply misunderstood parts of SALRE. I need to get it ordered into some sort of thesis and for preference presented at a conference to get other peoples views on it. And, of course, do a lit review to make sure I'm not treading old ground and avail myself of all the work people have already done on the topic. Etc etc.

    All stuff you need to do before you consider something an "advance" rather than just "something I wrote".
     
  15. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    Dennis,

    3 years ago, I didn't know about Dorsal Midfoot Interosseus Compression Syndrome as described by Kevin in his Precision Intracast Newsletters. It was, however, something I had been treating successfully for years

    Patients had dorsal mifdoot pain. They had lost "integrity" of the medial longitudinal arch. There would generally be a good range of rear foot movement and pronation of the forefoot would be restricted in many cases. (This is how I used to describe it BTW before you all jump on me)

    The thing that always got me was that sometimes I would have to have a really high arch on an orhtotic device and several other modalities including physio, footwear adapts etc to resolve the pain. Other times, a sliver of SCF in the arch would be the difference between the patient being able to walk and not.

    Having read the DMICS newsletter and understood about the forces and their point of application relating to the symptoms and pathology, I then read about stiffness, kinetics vs kinematics, morphology vs pathology and finally zones of optimal stress. All of a sudden, this pathology made perfect sense. Did I treat it any differently - no.

    The point I am making is, what you are proposing with FFT might be sensational and the next big thing in biomechanics. It works for you and it might work for others. However, until you can put some science behind it(peer reviewed etc), what you have is a collection of observations and, as Robert put it, "something I wrote" based on your experience. Doesn't make it wrong until proven so but it is certainly not scientific. Will putting some science behind your paradigm make you treat the patients any differently? Probably not but it will allow your observations and paradigm to be taken more seriously by others.

    Added to that, you deride others peer reviewed theories whilst at the same time peddling your own profit making paradigm of treatment that you try to pass off as scientific. Can you see why you are afforded no respect?

    Robin

    PS - pre - diabetic.....bollix! As has been said in the "Things You Never Want to Hear From Podiatry Patient" thread countless times, there is nothing worse than a patient saying they are either borderline diabetic or, "just a wee bit diabetic"
     
  16. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Robin:
    So much you say rings true and I would like to focus in the fact that I am a DPM and my audience is composed mainly of podiatrists that stand where you where three years ago. They do not understand stiffness, kinetics vs kinematics, morphology vs pathology and finally zones of optimal stress.as you did not then.

    If you are correct in stating that putting science behind my work will not treat patients differently than it lowers peer reviewed evidence on my priority list when compared to educating "my" peers as to the potential of functional lower extremity biomechanics as the core of their practices.
    I have only one peer reviewed article referencing FFT and that is in practical diabeticum of 2007 on The PreCharcot Foot.
    My lack of energy towards evidence also includes the perverse way that evidence is biased and peer reviewed and the fact that it is amazingly expensive and time consuming.
    In addition, many instances in the peer reviewed literature affirms FFT and Foot Centering and when I have mentioned a few on The Arena, they were shot down as not long enough, not enough subjects, not valid as to methodolgy, etc.
    This means that peer reviewed is not enough, what you reallly want is more.
    In addition, may of your proven peer reviewed truths that you affirm are poorly evidenced, poorly designed and they are very scant in number.

    Furthermore, as Foot Centering does not have to wait for pain or a chief complaint, the applications become so expansive compared to TSS and SALRE.

    Classification is the scientific basis for anatomy, taxonomy, blood typing and many other biological systems and these systams have the same flaws, weaknesses and straw arguments as foot typing.
    A robin or a finch is a bird but what about an ostrich?

    I am more integrative, more of a dreamer, more expansionist, more holistic, more patient oriented ans more clinically and health bound than The average Arena Member.
    I like you have learned biomechanics from these pages and have voiced my appreciation but I am applying my knowledge and teaching skills elsewhere.

    I am not the only one who feels insulted and bullied by these pages.
    I am the one really interested in learning what you have to offer.

    I have two retrospecitive, multicenter studies in progress that may be ready to present in 3-4 months and I know how thta will change my acceptance level.

    Best I can do.

    Dennis
     
  17. Tkemp

    Tkemp Active Member

    Interesting enough, non-verbal communication is the largest part of communication and conveys a wealth of information as to the meaning of the spoken word. This has been proven and verified.
    Therefore the use of "smiles" aids in comments on threads being interpretated in the correct manner. Allowing for a deeper and more personal level of "parley, banter and debate".
     
  18. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Tkemp:
    I quite agree but what is missing is a thread on The Arena, for those who are entering as rookies that explains the meaning of and use of "smiles" as I think in my case, (I don't even drink beer yet used :drinks and other smiles for a long time incorrectly enough as to be called a drunkard) that added to my edginess and arrogance (which I admit to) and to my current reputation on The Arena to be exaggerated.

    I stopped using "smiles" long ago when I realized that yet, as Robert demonstrated with his use of;), there are those of us with poor "smiles" quotients :sinking: (LOL).
    Dennis
     
  19. Depends what you mean by your acceptance level ;).

    Do you mean the acceptance of you personally? What you say about FFT? what you say about everything bar FFT?

    If the studies are good, they will show exactly what they show. No more, and no less.
     
  20. drsha

    drsha Banned

    This takes us back to The Arena flaws that antagonize the rest of The International Biomechanics Community.

    1. Robert shows no willingness to adjust his opinions, They are fixed, prejudged, biased and PERSONAL.
    My personality on The Arena (and that's all you know) has nothing to do with my science.
    2. Dr. Isaacs keys "If the studies are good" as if (collectively) The Arena opinions are heavily weighted.
    His use of good and (therefore) bad instead of valid and applicable, using Sackett's words, when he describes his anticipation of my evidence is enough to know the verdict before dissenting papers are released.
    Self funded, poorly conceived, poor methodology, low leveled, too few subjects, contains profit motivated bias skewing the data, lacking length, predetermined outcomes, just to mention a few.
    3. The Arena has no evidence of its own when it comes to defending TS or SALRE and depends, just like the rest of us, on its recognition and the orthodoxy faith of its followers.
    4. The tone on The Arena is that it possesses superior opinions when compared to those questioning the value of SALRE and TS and those proposing alternatives or additions to them by design.
    5. What The Arena fails to embrace is the possibility that there are some who wish to replace or expand STJ Neutral Biomechanics beyond its own acknowledged advances (by the rest of us) which by the way, IMHO, are formidable.

    Lets see what additions to diagnostic technique The Arena produces in 2012:rolleyes:.

    Dennis
     
  21. Bad day Dennis?
     
  22. drsha

    drsha Banned

    I actually had a great day Robert. How was yours.

    For those who understand sarcasm, smiles and chad wit:

    "Bad day Dennis" means IMHO "I have no way to answer this posting honestly as I know so much of it to be true. I will try to use some form of debating diversion to avoid exposing and admitting to the weakness of my argument. ;):drinks

    Dennis
     
  23. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    You are dogmatic and your science thus far is just that, dogma. You really need to get over this meaningless "us vs. them" mentality and test and publish your hypotheses or it continues to be dogma.

    There exists a large number of excellent quality studies on the effectiveness of custom foot orthoses for a number of conditions (and I can provide references, thank you Kevin and the “Arena”) which included diagnosis technique that is not FFT. SALRE is not a "system" it is a diagnostic paradigm, a tool from which observations can be made about that particular foot and patient that can be translated into treatment goals/modifications for the orthoses based on the presentation. You simply don’t understand Dennis that placing every foot into a clinical “box” and bastardizing biomechanical principles precludes you from following the current thinking in pedal biomechanics. It is a fatal flaw of yours, not ours.

    What SALRE and TS are not is self-limiting, a canned approach such as FFT. FFT possesses no corollary from foot type to pathology (we’ve been over that numerous times already), kinetic effect, modification etc. Based on what you call faith I read Kevin's paper on SALRE a few years back (and several that he has suggested since) and adopted what I learned into my practice as have numerous others around the world. I would call that Level III evidence since you are so fond of EBM, you're just too stubborn and financially invested to see or accept it. You can’t beat us over the head with words and expect us to take that same leap of faith with your ideas and product that have NO EVIDENCE to support them. FFT is merely words at this point.

    Produce some evidence for the love of God. If you spent ½ the time performing studies and research into FFT that you do here constantly whining that we’re unfair, have a bias etc. you may have been successful by now. Grow up man!

    You're a fanatic Dennis. Discussing rational subjects with you is a wasted effort. I see lively discussions all of the time on PA where new ideas and research are accepted and adopted. You’re a study of personal (and financial) bias of N=1.

    The failure in this argument is that very few here practice STJ neutral biomechanics Dennis. Robert in fact casts in foam a great deal, not very “Rootian”. The only formidable item about FFT is the effluence of meaningless words from its proponent, despite a nearly universal dismissal of your concepts. You have to ask yourself why at some point?

    Replace or expand at will but you have to come up with something that actually replaces or expands and IMPROVES on the subject. What you appear to have done is expound on foot typing with no logical path to treatment recommendations. Sure, you patented a lot of crap & verbiage but who cares; patented crap & verbiage is still crap when it has no clinical merit or value.

    Its all just “FFT that foot with a centring”...we still do not know what a centring is or what it does Dennis, you refuse to answer Eric's questions so you're right where you were last year this time. And the same for the year before that…and the same it will be in 2012.

    Dennis you can’t even tell us how your diagnostic exam correlates with the clinical decision making process in modifying/manufacturing a foot orthosis for a given patients pathology. You certainly cannot explain the link between their foot’s “posture” or “type” and their pathology consistently, the research (evidence) states otherwise.

    Dennis is not just having a bad day Robert, no. He’s having a bad case of believing his own dogmatic bull**** despite everyone else pointing it out to him.

    *Disclaimer: no sarcasm, smiles or chad wit were utilized in the making of this post.
     
  24. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Dennis, are you aware that there is an international society of biomechanics that publishes the journal of biomechanics. There are also several biomechanics societies for individual countries. I'd say that the majority of people that are members of the ISB (the international biomechanics community) have no idea that podiatry arena exists and those that do probably don't feel antagonized by us. Maybe your and my definition of international biomechanics community just as our definitions of biomechanics did.


    Dennis, you really are too sensitive. All he said was good studies are good studies. On the other hand you have the personality of an eleven year old bully and your science sucks (I've read your patent is there any other science you have published) You are right they are separate issues. If you published some good science, I'd have no trouble calling it good.



    You are just as wrong here as were about the definition of biomechanics.

    Guilty as charged. Dennis, the last time you were critical of tissue stress you claimed that no one had explained the physics of flight of birds. You should have googled that one before you wrote it. With criticism of tissue stress like that, of course we feel that we have superior opinions. What criticism of tissue stress have we not answered?

    Dennis, I've been a very harsh critic of STJ neutral theory. However, I think that it s a better paradigm than functional foot typing because it actually tries to relate its measurements to the ground. The concept of a partially compensated varus is a good one. Functional foot typing is a step backwards from STJ neutral.

    Dennis, what have you gained by antagonizing us? (Claims of close mindedness and bias)


    Eric
     
  25. I am SO busted. You read me like a book ;)

    All I was saying that when your research is published, I hope and believe that it will be judged fairly and on its merits. Don't know where the rest of your reply came from.

    My day was adequate. My poker game has really suffered since Xmas, don't know why, and that's been making me grumpy. That nights game was a bit better, which helped a bit.
     
  26. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drsha View Post
    3. The Arena has no evidence of its own when it comes to defending TS or SALRE and depends, just like the rest of us, on its recognition and the orthodoxy faith of its followers.


    You are just as wrong here as were about the definition of biomechanics.
    Eric[/QUOTE]

    Eric:
    Please list the
    Level I-II evidence for
    SALRE
    TS

    especially looking forward to the peer reviewed articles that relate to tying SALRE or TS to pathology, outcomes.

    Mt point for asking is:
    What have you got beyond trial and error more than I?

    Dennis
     
  27. The laws of physics

    As a ps the thread is about diagnosis technique new in 2011.

    Not 1 has been mentioned. A diagnosis technique that leads to a diagnosis of a pathological tissue would something like a new palpational technique new image machine
     
  28. Ah, but you forget Mike. The laws of physics don't apply to living creatures. Otherwise how could birds fly eh? :D Very mysterious.

    How about this one.

    Payne, C. B., Munteanu, S., & Miller, K. (2003). Position of the subtalar joint axis and resistance of the rearfoot to supination. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 93 (2), 131-135.

    Or just consider any of the copious outcome studies for lateral wedging and medial Knee OA. Which was predicted by and fits with SALRE and TS, but not by Root or FFT.
     
  29. I invented a jig which enables the user to measure supination resistance and then measure the change in supination resistance which occurs with variation in the rearfoot posting angle. I then presented this ongoing work at two international podiatric conferences that I was invited to speak at during 2011- one in the UK, one in the U.S.A. Does this count as an addition?
     
  30. Here some other studies that support the concepts embodied within the subtalar joint axis locatioin and rotational equilibrium theory of foot function (SALRE):

    1) Ruby P, Hull ML, Kirby KA, Jenkins DW: The effect of lower-limb anatomy on knee loads during seated cycling, J Biomechanics, 25 (10): 1195-1207, 1992.

    2) Pascual Huerta J, Ropa Moreno JM, Kirby KA: Static response of maximally pronated and nonmaximally pronated feet to frontal plane wedging of foot orthoses. JAPMA, 99:13-19, 2009.

    Now, further work is being done to make computational models (i.e. finite element models) using subtalar joint axis location to better plan rearfoot surgeries, such as for treatment of Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity.

    http://www.nsf.gov/eng/highlights/cbet/0134217.Piazza.pdf
     
  31. drsha

    drsha Banned

    or a new starting platform:rolleyes::empathy:
     
  32. stevewells

    stevewells Active Member

    YAWN - another pointless thread
     
  33. Tkemp

    Tkemp Active Member


    Definition - "peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals."

    You state that obtaining evidence to support your theories is too expensive and time consuming. However, if there was sufficient and accurate evidence to back up your theories, surely you'd be only too happy to use all possible time and resources to substantiate your findings.
    Peer review is harsh, and rightly so. Any changes to our practise, based on new evidence, impact on our client's welfare, either positively or negatively. So it is vital that any theories/ findings/ research be scrutinized closely to ensure the high standards of the profession are upheld.

    Your reluctance to provide adequate "subjects, methodology, etc" raises the question of whether there is actually any evidence.

    I am not claiming to be an expert, and I admit I struggled with peer review tasks at Uni, yet even i can see the gaps.
     
  34. drsha

    drsha Banned

    You are so right in your comments as to my need to provide peer reviewed evidence
    But
    who validates and peer reviews the "peer reviewers" you mention and the bias and purposes of the suspicious, self proclaimed scholars and professionals?

    I believe my second peer reviewed article (I have listed the first and you "proved it" invalid) will be ready to offer for publication in 3-4 months.

    It is currently titled:
    A multicenter retrospective study of 250 patients presenting to podiatry offices with a chief complaint using Functional Foot Typing.

    Dennis
     
  35. Can't wait to read it! Looking forward to some good science:drinks.

    Not really self proclaimed Dennis. As you've discovered, proclaiming yourself to be an expert doesn't make everyone else respect you as such.

    I suspect they are proclaimed by their peers. Who else is there?
     
  36. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Robert:
    You act as if self promotion is a bad thing when somewhere in the birth of scientific advance there must live self promotion and appropriate caution against blind acceptance.
    Denying that phase of scientific development makes science stale and incestuous.

    As far as peers deciding what is an advance to the existing art of biomechanics, that depends on who the peer group is. For example, it is my humble opinion that when it comes to groups, American Podiatrists (DPM's) consider themselves superior to British, Australian or New Zealand Podiatrists (non DPM's) and vica versa.

    I question you:

    1. Do you consider (as a group) DPM's to be your peer Biomechanically?

    2. Have you ever researched what the opinion of The Podiatry Arena is to The American Podiatrist (DPM)? My pulse is that it is not as vaulted as you may be thinking.

    3. How many of Dr Scherer's books that talk of others being Charlatans and that I see quoted frequently on The Arena as if peer reviewed do you think have sold as a gauge of the value of his opinion biomechanically?
    Where is his evidence? Why are my textbook statements not accepted at face value as Pauls's?

    4. How many DPM's do you think are following Dr. Kirby or Dr. Fuller in America in learning engineering or TS or SALRE as a foundation to their biomechanical practices?

    Peer, like evidence and so many other things is not purely scientific and unchallenged and lives in the eyes of the beholder.

    Dennis
     
Loading...

Share This Page