Email this article Results of the first Russian Delphi survey on the diagnosis and treatment of flatfoot in children
- Authors: Dimitrieva A.Y.1, Kenis V.M.2, Klychkova I.Y.1, Sapogovskiy A.V.1, Kozhevnikov V.V.3
-
Affiliations:
- H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Children’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery
- H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Сhildren’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery
- Novosibirsk Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics
- Issue: Vol 11, No 1 (2023)
- Pages: 49-66
- Section: Clinical studies
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/turner/article/view/254921
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/PTORS112465
- ID: 254921
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Subscription Access
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, there is no consensus regarding the diagnostics of flatfoot in children and approaches to its classification and treatment.
AIM: This study aimed to demonstrate the results of the first Russian consensus, performed according to the Delphi method, for the diagnostics and treatment of flatfoot in children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Delphi survey and the RAND/UCLA and participated by 22 experts in their field. The questionnaire consisted of four main sections, namely, general clinical assessment, flatfoot diagnosis, classification approach, and treatment, including 179 close-ended and 11 open-ended statements in both rounds. A 5-point Likert scale was used to rank responses. The level of agreement was determined as follows: ≥70% of the experts agrees, the statement is accepted; <55%, rejected; 55%–69%, reassessment by experts in subsequent rounds. To assess agreement among experts, parameters such as general agreement, agreement without doubt by experts, and percentage of doubting experts were calculated. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and Cronbach’s alpha were calculated.
RESULTS: The statement was accepted with an agreement without doubt by experts ≥ 70%, with Cronbach’s alpha of ≥ 0.8. According to the survey data, in the two rounds using 179 close-ended statements, 96 statements were accepted, 63 were rejected, and no consensus was reached on 20.
CONCLUSIONS: This scientific work presents the results of the first Russian Delphi survey on the diagnosis and treatment of flatfoot in children with a unique number of experts (n = 22). The lack of agreement on some of the statements, even among experts, showed that consensus was a necessary first step toward standardizing the diagnosis and treatment of flatfoot in children.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Alena Yu. Dimitrieva
H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Children’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery
Email: aloyna17@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3610-7788
SPIN-code: 7112-8638
Scopus Author ID: 57194179597
ResearcherId: AGO-2659-2022
MD, PhD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgVladimir M. Kenis
H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Сhildren’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery
Email: kenis@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7651-8485
SPIN-code: 5597-8832
Scopus Author ID: 36191914200
ResearcherId: K-8112-2013
MD, PhD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgIrina Yu. Klychkova
H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Children’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery
Email: klychkova@yandex.ru
SPIN-code: 5350-5532
MD, PhD, Dr. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgAndrey V. Sapogovskiy
H. Turner National Medical Research Center for Children’s Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery
Email: sapogovskiy@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5762-4477
SPIN-code: 2068-2102
Scopus Author ID: 57193257532
MD, PhD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgVadim V. Kozhevnikov
Novosibirsk Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics
Author for correspondence.
Email: vadim-barnaul@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2556-3347
Scopus Author ID: 57193277781
MD, PhD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, NovosibirskReferences
- Dane J. A study of flat-foot, with special attention to the development of the arch of the foot. Boston Med Surg J. 1892;CXXVII(19):447–450. doi: 10.1056/nejm189211101271902
- Banwell HA, Paris ME, Mackintosh S, et al. Paediatric flexible flat foot: how are we measuring it and are we getting it right? A systematic review. J Foot Ankle Res. 2018;11(1). doi: 10.1186/s13047-018-0264-3
- Kenis VM, Dimitrieva AYu, Sapogovskiy AV. The attitude of doctors of various specialties to the problem of flatfoot. Herald of North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov. 2019;11(4):27–36. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/mechnikov201911427-36
- Chuckpaiwong B, Nunley JA, Queen RM. Correlation between static foot type measurements and clinical assessments. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(3):205–212. doi: 10.3113/fai.2009.0205
- Dimitrieva AJu, Kenis VM, Sapogovskiy AV. Flatfoot or not: subjective perception of the height of the feet arch among orthopedists. Pediatric Traumatology, Orthopaedics and Reconstructive Surgery. 2020;8(2):179–184. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/PTORS21192
- Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: The Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech. 2006;21(1):89–98. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.08.002
- Keenan A-M, Redmond AC, Horton M, et al. The Foot Posture Index: rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(1):88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.005
- Vernon W. The Delphi technique: a review. Int J Therapy Rehabil. 2009;16(2):69–76. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.2.38892
- Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Technometrics. 1976;18(3). doi: 10.2307/1268751
- Grant JS, Kinney MR. Using the Delphi technique to examine the content validity of nursing diagnoses. Nurs Diagn. 1992;3(1):12–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-618x.1992.tb00193.x
- Williams PL, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs. 1994;19(1):180–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01066.x
- McKenna HP. The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing? J Adv Nurs. 1994;19(6):1221–1225. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01207.x
- Sackman H. Delphi critique: expert opinion, forecasting and group process. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1975.
- Hejblum G, Ioos V, Vibert JF, et al. A web-based Delphi study on the indications of chest radiographs for patients in ICUs. Chest. 2008;133(5):1107–1112. doi: 10.1378/chest.06-3014
- Black N, Murphy M, Lamping D, et al. Consensus development methods: a review of best practice in creating clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999;4(4):236–248. doi: 10.1177/135581969900400410
- Dars S, Uden H, Kumar S, et al. When, why and how foot orthoses (FOs) should be prescribed for children with flexible pes planus: a Delphi survey of podiatrists. PeerJ. 2018;6. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4667
- Banwell HA, Mackintosh S, Thewlis D, et al. Consensus-based recommendations of Australian podiatrists for the prescription of foot orthoses for symptomatic flexible pes planus in adults. J Foot Ankle Res. 2014;7(1). doi: 10.1186/s13047-014-0049-2
- Pavone V, Vescio A, Andreacchio A, et al. Results of the Italian Pediatric Orthopedics Society juvenile flexible flatfoot survey: diagnosis and treatment options. J Pediatric Orthop B. 2021;31(1):17–23. doi: 10.1097/bpb.0000000000000881
- Mosca V. Principles and management of pediatric foot and ankle deformities and malformations. Wolters Kluwer Health; 2015.
- Dimitrieva AYu. Mobil’noe ploskostopie u detei mladshego shkol’nogo vozrasta (dissertation). Saint-Petersburg; 2020. (in Russ.). [cited 2022 Sep 08]. Available from: http://dissovet.rniito.ru/ds2/upload/files/Dimitrieva/dissert.pdf
- Kenis VM, Dimitrieva AYu, Sapogovskiy AV. Correlation between pain threshold and complaints of pain in children with flexible flatfoot. Pediatria n.a. G.N. Speransky. 2019;98(4):263–268. (In Russ.). doi: 10.24110/0031-403X-2019-98-4-263-268
- Bulbena A, Gago J, Pailhez G, et al. Joint hypermobility syndrome is a risk factor trait for anxiety disorders: a 15-year follow-up cohort study. Genl Hosp Psychiatry. 2011;33(4):363–370. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2011.03.00
Supplementary files
