BackgroundThere is limited evidence of shoe impact in younger children, particularly in the context of immature gait patterns. It is unclear if the impact from shoes in younger children is similar to what has been seen in older children. This systematic review aims to identify any impact of shoe features on younger children’s gait, and if there are any differences between shoe sole flexibility compared to barefoot.MethodsStudy inclusion criteria included: typically developing children aged ≤6 years; comparison of barefoot and shod conditions (walking and/or running) with shoe features or style of shoe described; sample size > 1. Novelty types of footwear were excluded, as was any mention of in shoe support or modifications. Studies were located from six databases. Study methodology was assessed using the McMasters critical review form. Sample size weighted standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.ResultsFour studies were included. Participant age ranged from 15.2 to 78.7 months, with 262 participants across all studies. All studies had limited methodological bias based on their design type. Compared to barefoot walking, shoes increased velocity, step time and step length. Shod walking decreased cadence. Peak plantar pressure was generally lower in the stiff shoe design and there was a higher peak plantar pressure in the Ultraflex shoes. No studies were found investigating muscle activation.ConclusionsShoes affect younger children’s gait in spatiotemporal gait aspects, similar to those seen in older children. There is limited evidence on effects of particular shoe features such as sole hardness, on gait, and no evidence of any changes in muscle activation patterns. Further research is required to evaluate the impact of different types of shoe and shoe features in this population to provide clinical advice on the type of shoe that is appropriate in this age group.

BackgroundPaediatric gait and lower limb assessments are frequently undertaken in podiatry and physiotherapy clinical practice and this is a growing area of expertise within Australia. No concise paediatric standardised recording proforma exists to assist clinicians in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to develop a gait and lower limb standardised recording proforma guided by the literature and consensus, for assessment of the paediatric foot and lower limb in children aged 0–18 years.MethodExpert Australian podiatrists and physiotherapists were invited to participate in a three round Delphi survey panel using the online Qualtrics© survey platform. The first round of the survey consisted of open-ended questions on paediatric gait and lower limb assessment developed from existing templates and a literature search of standardised lower limb assessment methods. Rounds two and three consisted of statements developed from the first round responses. Questions and statements were included in the final proforma if 70 % or more of the participants indicated consensus or agreement with the assessment method and if there was support within the literature for paediatric age-specific normative data with acceptable reliability of outcome measures.ResultsThere were 17 of the 21 (81 %) participants who completed three rounds of the survey. Consensus was achieved for 41 statements in Round one, 54 statements achieved agreement in two subsequent rounds. Participants agreed on 95 statements relating to birth history, developmental history, hip measurement, rotation of the lower limb, ankle range of motion, foot posture, balance and gait. Assessments with acceptable validity and reliability were included within the final Gait and Lower Limb Observation of Paediatrics (GALLOP) proforma.ConclusionThe GALLOP proforma is a consensus based, systematic and standardised way to collect information and outcome measures in paediatric lower limb assessment. This standardised recording proforma will assist professions to collect information in a standardised format based on best evidence assessment methods whilst aiding consistency in communication between health professionals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13047-016-0139-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

After publication of our article [1] we were notified that Figure 1 was incorrectly published as a duplicate of Table 1.