Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Hi All,
Had the good fortune to attend the recent Australasian Podiatry Conference held in Sydney, which was brilliant (best clinically significant content I've had the pleasure to listen to in a long time).
Presented there was this research about the relationship between childhood obesity and "flat feet".

http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/6/S1/O12

It used BMI and Foot Posture Index as the measures to draw conclusions, very throughly reanalysing data from the datasets of four earlier studies.
It came to a significantly different conclusion than many other studies in this field, most of which (so I understand) have used footprint based measures. (But I may well be incorrect in thinking this)

My question is this: Does this perhaps raise questions about the Foot Posture Index as a measure? Is this study perhaps showing a different outcome because it is measuring something different, as opposed to having a different outcome because earlier studies were wrong?

Wondering if my analytical instincts are still intact.....

Thanks in advance,
Cara Kwiecien

 

,Hi Cara,

In my view, there is a different between the FPI which accounts for many parts of the foot and foot flatness.

I don't think the early studies were wrong, just that the measure they used took accounted for more surface area of the foot (ie: footprint = bigger child, more subcut fat therefore foot may have appeared flatter). Therefore it wasn't the appropriate measure to make the assumption and conclusion that they did.

Hope that helps?

 

Ah, yes, this is what I was getting at in a not-well-written way, it seemed to me that there was a difference in what was being measured. I hadn't thought of the subcutaneous fat - that clears it up in my brain. Thank you.

 

New flatfoot data rekindle debate over role of obesity