Gait and Lower Limb Observation of Paediatrics (GALLOP): development of a consensus based paediatric podiatry and physiotherapy standardised recording proforma
Simone Cranage Helen Banwell and Cylie M. Williams Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20169:8
Having read introduction only, I ended up with a couple of questions. If I got right the first and the second paragraphs of the background section, the Foot Posture Index-6 is presented among "standardised assessments developed with paediatric age-specific normative values for the lower limb" and "[p]aediatric specific outcome measures that evaluate the effectiveness of treatment within this population".
I wonder if the FPI-6 was developed with paediatric age-specific normative values in mind, how does it allow to differentiate between flexible/developmental and rigid/non-developmental flat feet/pronation scores in, say, three, eight, twelve-year-olds?
If the FPI-6 is paediatric specific, why, for instance, the paediatric flat foot proforma which utilizes the FPI-6, is not mentioned? Is it less paediatric specific or not developed within the last 10 years?
Since the authors aimed to summarize Australian expert podiatry and physiotherapy clinical practice, as a reader I think I lost from their decision to not answer these questions from one of the reviewer's reports:
Just interested if anyone is using this in clinical practice?
From my non-PhD not-super-clever-at-paeds clinical perspective, I appreciated your comment, Ina.
In my own opinion I get the feeling there may have been some issues with who was invited to contribute - it's a fairly narrow range and a lot of podiatrists compared to physiotherapists, and NO other disciplines.
That said, it's far more evidence based than the based-on-uni-10-years+ ago templates I've used in my own clinical practice and I'm thinking it may be worth adopting.
E., it's amazing how different may be everyone's perception, regarding
In my view, if this is a survey of experts' opinion on a certain issue, how could it be different from an expert opinion level which it aims to summarize? In general, could any gathering of any experts' opinion ensure that theirs reflect an evidence-based approach but not the same 1-5-10-20-year-old templates?..
Sorry to hear if in Australia or elsewhere there are expectations for readers to have a PhD in order to read critically what authors with PhDs have published, but I doubt if an undergraduate student anywhere under an evidence-based-medicine sun could get away with the statement that their work was guided by the literature and experts' consensus, immediately followed by a non-systematic literature review, citing cherry-picked publications and omitting others published within the same time frame. Anyway, I apologize for driving the discussion away from where it belongs, within podiatry practitioners of the said country.