Normal pressure values and repeatability of the Emed® ST2 system

Gait and Posture

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 391-394

  Maetzler, M ^a   Bochdansky, T ^b   Abboud, R J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b LKH Rankweil   (Austria)

Author keywords

Barefoot; Emed ST2; Normal; Pressure; Repeatability

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; FEMALE; FOOT; HALLUX; HEEL; HUMAN; MALE; METATARSAL BONE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; BIOMECHANICS; FEMALE; FOOT; GAIT; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PODIATRY; PRESSURE; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SAMPLING STUDIES; WALKING; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 77956730496     PISSN: 09666362     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.06.023     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Morlock M.M., Mittlmeier T. Modern gait analysis: a tool to improve shoes, insoles and the understanding of foot function. Acta Orthop Belg 1996, 62(Suppl 1):11-16.
2. Abboud R.J., Rowley D.I. Foot pressure measurement-history and development. Surgery of disorders of foot and ankle 1996, 123-138. Martin Dunitz Ltd., [chapter III.4].
3. ® ST4 system. Gait & Posture 2008, 27:501-505.
4. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, i307-i310.
5. Femery V., Moretto P., Renaut H. Asymmetries in dynamic plantar pressure distribution measurement in able-bodied gait: application to the study of the gait asymmetries in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Ann Readapt Med Phys 2002, 45(3):114-122.
6. Young D. Foot pressure measurement-the need for standardisation of methodology 2003, Newsletter figroup.com.
7. Wearing S.C., Urry S., Smeathers J.E. A comparison of gait initiation and termination methods for obtaining plantar foot pressures. Gait & Posture 1999, 10(3):255-263.
8. Van der Leeden M., Dekker J.H., Siemonsma P.C., Lek-Westerhof S.S., Steultjens M.P. Reproducibility of plantar pressure measurements in patients with chronic arthritis: a comparison of one-step, two-step, and three-step protocols and an estimate of the number of measurements required. Foot Ankle Int 2004, 25(10):739-744.
9. Oladeji O., Stackhouse C., Gracely E. Comparison of the two-step and midgait methods of plantar pressure measurement in children. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2008, 98(4):268-277.
10. Meyers-Rice B., Sugars L., McPoil T., Cornwall M.W. Comparison of three methods for obtaining plantar pressures in non-pathologic subjects. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1994, 84(10):499-504.
11. Bryant A., Singer K., Tinley P. Comparison of the reliability of plantar pressure measurements using the two-step and midgait methods of data collection. Foot Ankle Int 1999, 20(10):646-650.
12. McPoil T.G., Cornwall M.W., Dupuis L., Cornwell M. Variability of plantar pressure data, a comparison of the two-step and midgait methods. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1999, 89(10):495-501.
13. Gurney J.K., Kersting U.G., Rosenbaum D. Between-day reliability of repeated plantar pressure distribution measurements in a normal population. Gait & Posture 2008, 27(4):706-709.
14. Akhlaghi F., Daw J., Pepper M., Potter M.J. In-shoe step-to-step pressure variations. Foot 1994, 4:62-68.
15. Bryant A.R., Tinley P., Singer K.P. Normal values of plantar pressure measurements determined using the EMED-SF system. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2000, 90(6):295-299.
16. Hughes J., Clark P., Linge K., Klenerman L. A comparison of two studies of the pressure distribution under the feet of normal subjects using different equipment. Foot Ankle 1993, 14(9):514-519.
17. Hayes A., Seitz P. The average pressure distribution of the diabetic foot: can it be used as a clinical diagnostic aid?. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 1997, 12(3):S3-S4.