000166067 001__ 166067
000166067 005__ 20260119170325.0
000166067 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1016/j.jbmt.2025.12.001
000166067 0248_ $$2sideral$$a147472
000166067 037__ $$aART-2026-147472
000166067 041__ $$aeng
000166067 100__ $$aCarrelero Camp, Sergi
000166067 245__ $$aComparative analysis of measurement methods for forefoot varus reliability: A systematic review and meta-analysis
000166067 260__ $$c2026
000166067 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000166067 5203_ $$aBackground: Forefoot Varus is characterized by inversion of the metatarsal heads relative to the calcaneal bisector. It is present in 83.67 % of cases and contributes to overpronation and related foot/knee/hip pathologies. Despite multiple assessment methods, their reliability remains unclear. This systematic review evaluates the most reliable measurement technique. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis selected studies from several databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PEDro. The search strategies included keywords such as “forefoot”, “varus forefoot”, “supinatus forefoot”, “varus alignment of the foot-ankle complex” or “shank-forefoot” and their combinations were used. Studies published in the English, French, and Spanish language were included until July 4th, 2024. After identifying the articles, the methodological quality was assessed using the GRRAS checklist. The reported results were intra-class correlation coefficient, influence on gait, biomechanical factors, and pathologies. Results: This meta-analysis of 13 studies (n = 1238) found excellent intra-observer reliability for forefoot varus measurements (pooled ICC = 0.92, 95 %CI 0.89–0.94), with significant inter-observer differences (Q = 38.7, p < 0.001): goniometry showed ICCs of 0.56–0.68 (isolated forefoot or JIG shank-forefoot alignment goniometer) versus 0.81–0.91 (shank-forefoot alignment), while photogrammetry maintained consistently higher reliability (ICCs 0.90–0.93). Photogrammetry and goniometry demonstrated moderate correlation between methods (r = 0.71, 95 %CI 0.63–0.78) across predominantly healthy populations studies (76.9 %, mean age 31.5 ± 15.2 years). Conclusion: Photogrammetric and shank-forefoot alignment methods demonstrate Excellent reliability (ICC >0.90) for forefoot varus assessment, while traditional goniometry shows inconsistent results. Standardized protocols are recommended to ensure cross-study comparability
000166067 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby$$uhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
000166067 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000166067 700__ $$aDalmau-Pastor, Miki
000166067 700__ $$aDe Blas, Clara Simón
000166067 700__ $$aVergés Sala, Carles
000166067 700__ $$aDe Planell Mas, Elena
000166067 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0001-9678-3449$$aHernández-Secorún, Mar
000166067 773__ $$g46 (2026), 521-535$$pJ. bodyw. mov. ther.$$tJournal of bodywork and movement therapies$$x1360-8592
000166067 8564_ $$s5302593$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/166067/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000166067 8564_ $$s2270721$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/166067/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000166067 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:166067$$particulos$$pdriver
000166067 951__ $$a2026-01-19-14:39:19
000166067 980__ $$aARTICLE