Previous studies have demonstrated that Foot Posture Index (FPI-6) is a valid and moderately reliable tool to evaluate foot posture. However, data about reliability and validity of FPI-6 in the assessment of foot posture in people with low back pain (LBP) is lacking. To investigate reliability and validity of FPI-6 in the assessment of foot posture in people with LBP. Thirty volunteers with LBP, aged 20–64 years, were recruited for the research and assessed by two raters. The data measured by different raters on the same day were used to calculate the inter-rater reliability. The data measured by the same rater on different dates were used to calculate the test–retest reliability. The reliability of FPI-6 was tested with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and absolute reliability with standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC) and Bland–Altman analysis. The validity of FPI-6 was tested with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Spearman's correlation coefficients. The FPI-6 indicated excellent inter-rater and test–retest reliability in the evaluation of foot posture in people with LBP (ICC = 0.97 and 0.95). The agreement for inter-rater and test–retest was excellent based on the SEM (SEM = 0.12) and MDC value (MDC = 0.33). Bland–Altman plots showed that there was no significant systematic bias for the agreement on the ground of low mean difference (< 1). The EFA suggested that the fit indices were considered acceptable according to the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value (KMO = 0.620) and Bartlett's sphericity test (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between each item and total score of FPI-6 because the Spearman’s correlation coefficient of six items were all > 0.3 (P < 0.01). The inter-rater and test–retest reliability and validity of FPI-6 on people with LBP were proved reliable. It might be considered a reliable and valid adjunctive tool to detect possible changes of foot posture after interventions in patients with LBP.

Background: Gastric cancer (GC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality and the fifth most common cancer worldwide. However, the underlying mechanisms of competitive endogenous RNAs (ceRNAs) in GC are unclear. This study aimed to construct a ceRNA regulation network in correlation with prognosis and explore a prognostic model associated with GC.Methods: In this study, 1,040 cases of GC were obtained from TCGA and GEO datasets. To identify potential prognostic signature associated with GC, Cox regression analysis and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression were employed. The prognostic value of the signature was validated in the GEO84437 training set, GEO84437 test set, GEO15459 set, and TCGA-STAD. Based on the public databases, TargetScan and starBase, an mRNA-miRNA-lncRNA regulatory network was constructed, and hub genes were identified using the CytoHubba plugin. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes, immune cell infiltration, genetic variants, methylation, and somatic copy number alteration (sCNA) associated with the ceRNA network were derived using bioinformatics methods.Results: A total of 234 prognostic genes were identified. GO and GSEA revealed that the biological pathways and modules related to immune response and fibroblasts were considerably enriched in GC. A nomogram was generated to provide accurate prognostic outcomes and individualized risk estimates, which were validated in the training, test dataset, and two independent validation datasets. Thereafter, an mRNA-miRNA-lncRNA regulatory network containing 4 mRNAs, 22 miRNAs, 201 lncRNAs was constructed. The KCNQ1OT1/hsa-miR-378a-3p/RBMS1 ceRNA network associated with the prognosis was obtained by hub gene analysis and correlation analysis. Importantly, we found that the KCNQ1OT1/miR-378a-3p/RBMS1 axis may play a vital role in the diagnosis and prognosis of GC patients based on Cox regression analyses. Furthermore, our findings demonstrated that mutations and sCNA of the KCNQ1OT1/miR-378a-3p/RBMS1 axis were associated with increased immune infiltration, while the abnormal upregulation of the axis was primarily a result of hypomethylation.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the KCNQ1OT1/miR-378a-3p/RBMS1 axis may be a potential prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target for GC. Moreover, such findings provide insights into the molecular mechanisms of GC pathogenesis.

ObjectiveAcupuncture is emerging as a potential therapy for relieving pain, but the effectiveness of acupuncture for relieving low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) during the pregnancy remains controversial. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of acupuncture on pain, functional status and quality of life for women with LBPP pain during the pregnancy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe PubMed, EMBASE databases, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 15 January 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRCTs evaluating the effects of acupuncture on LBPP during the pregnancy were included.Data extraction and synthesisThe data extraction and study quality assessment were independently performed by three reviewers. The mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for pooled data were calculated. We assessed the confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were pain, functional status and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were overall effects (a questionnaire at a post-treatment visit within a week after the last treatment to determine the number of people who received good or excellent help), analgesic consumption, Apgar scores >7 at 5 min, adverse events, gestational age at birth, induction of labour and mode of birth.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 10 studies, reporting on a total of 1040 women. Overall, acupuncture significantly relieved pain during pregnancy (MD=1.70, 95% CI: (0.95 to 2.45), p<0.00001, I2=90%) and improved functional status (MD=12.44, 95% CI: (3.32 to 21.55), p=0.007, I2=94%) and quality of life (MD=−8.89, 95% CI: (−11.90 to –5.88), p<0.00001, I2= 57%). There was a significant difference for overall effects (OR=0.13, 95% CI: (0.07 to 0.23), p<0.00001, I2= 7%). However, there was no significant difference for analgesic consumption during the study period (OR=2.49, 95% CI: (0.08 to 80.25), p=0.61, I2=61%) and Apgar scores of newborns (OR=1.02, 95% CI: (0.37 to 2.83), p=0.97, I2= 0%). Preterm birth from acupuncture during he study period was reported in two studies. Although preterm contractions were reported in two studies, all infants were in good health at birth. In terms of gestational age at birth, induction of labour and mode of birth, only one study reported the gestational age at birth (mean gestation 40 weeks). Thus, prospective randomised clinical studies or clinical follow-up studies were hence desirable to further evaluate these outcomes.ConclusionsAcupuncture significantly improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Additionally, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are still needed to further confirm these results.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021241771.

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that Foot Posture Index (FPI-6) is a valid and moderately reliable tool to evaluate foot posture. However, data about reliability and validity of FPI-6 in the assessment of foot posture in people with low back pain (LBP) is lacking.Objectives: To investigate reliability and validity of FPI-6 in the assessment of foot posture in people with LBP.Methods: Thirty volunteers with LBP, aged 20 - 64 years, were recruited for the research and assessed by two raters. The data measured by different raters on the same day were used to calculate the inter-rater reliability. The data measured by the same rater on different dates were used to calculate the test-retest reliability. The reliability of FPI-6 was tested with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and absolute reliability with standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC) and Bland–Altman analysis. The validity of FPI-6 was tested with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Spearman's correlation coefficients. Results: The FPI-6 indicated excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability in the evaluation of foot posture in people with LBP (ICC = 0.97 and 0.95). The agreement for inter-rater and test-retest was excellent based on the SEM (SEM = 0.12) and MDC value (MDC = 0.33). Bland–Altman plots showed that there was no significant systematic bias for the agreement on the ground of low mean difference (< 1). The EFA suggested that the fit indices were considered acceptable according to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value (KMO = 0.620) and Bartlett's sphericity test (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between each item and total score of FPI-6 because the Spearman’s correlation coefficient of six items were all > 0.3 (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The inter-rater and test-retest reliability and validity of FPI-6 on people with LBP were proved reliable. It might be considered a reliable and valid adjunctive tool to detect possible changes of foot posture after interventions in patients with LBP.

Background: There is increased interest in proprioceptive training for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, little consensus supports the effectiveness of this intervention.Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of proprioceptive training on symptoms, function, and proprioception in people with KOA.Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to April 16, 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by calculating the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used for the analyses.Results: A total of 24 RCTs involving 1,275 participants were included in our analysis. This study indicated that compared to no intervention, proprioceptive training significantly improved pain, stiffness, physical function, joint position sense (JPS), muscle strength, mobility, and knee ROM (P &lt; 0.05) in people with KOA. When compared to other non-proprioceptive training, proprioceptive training provided better results in terms of JPS (SMD = −1.28, 95%CI: [−1.64, −0.92], I2 = 0%, P &lt; 0.00001) and mobility (timed walk over spongy surface) (SMD = −0.76, 95%CI: [−1.33, −0.18], I2 = 64%, P = 0.01), and other results are similar. When proprioceptive training plus other non-proprioceptive training compared to other non-proprioceptive training, the two groups showed similar outcomes, but there was a greater improvement for JPS (SMD = −1.54, 95%CI: [−2.74, −0.34], I2 = 79%, P = 0.01), physical function (SMD = −0.34, 95%CI: [−0.56, −0.12], I2 = 0%, P = 0.003), and knee ROM (P &lt; 0.05) in the proprioceptive training plus other non-proprioceptive training group. When proprioceptive training plus conventional physiotherapy compared against conventional physiotherapy, the two groups demonstrated similar outcomes, but there was a significant improvement for JPS (SMD = −0.95, 95%CI: [−1.73, −0.18], I2 = 78%, P = 0.02) in the proprioceptive training plus conventional physiotherapy group.Conclusions: Proprioceptive training is safe and effective in treating KOA. There is some evidence that proprioceptive training combined with general non-proprioceptive training or conventional physiotherapy appears to be more effective and should be considered as part of the rehabilitation program. However, given that the majority of current studies investigated the short-term effect of these proprioceptive training programs, more large-scale and well-designed studies with long-term follow up are needed to determine the long-term effects of these proprioceptive training regimes in KOA.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021240587.