{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030617283950617285, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01728395061728395, 'mean_word_length': 5.472843450479234, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Reliability of a Novel Electromechanical Device and Handheld Ruler for Measuring First Ray Mobility

Background: Quantifying first ray mobility is crucial to understand aberrant foot biomechanics. A novel device (MAP1st) that can perform measurements of first ray mobility in different weightbearing conditions, foot alignments, and normalization was tested. The reliability of these measurement techniques was assessed in comparison to a handheld ruler considered representative of the common clinical examination. Methods: The study included 25 participants (50 feet). Two independent raters performed baseline, test-retest, and remove-replace measurements of first ray mobility with MAP1st and the handheld device. The effects of non-, partial, and full weightbearing in subtalar joint neutral and the resting calcaneal stance position were assessed. Measurement normalization relative to foot size was also investigated. Intra- and interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for each device between the 2 raters. In addition, Bland-Altman plots were constructed to determine if fixed biases or substantial outliers were present. Results: Similar intrarater ICC values were found for both devices (≥0.85). However, interrater ICC values were substantially improved by MAP1st compared with the handheld device (0.58 vs 0.06). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated biases of 1.27 mm for the handheld ruler, and 2.88 to 0.05 mm and −1.16 to 0.00 for linear and normalized MAP1st measurements, respectively. Improved reliability was achieved with MAP1st for normalized assessments of first ray mobility while the foot was placed in partial- and full-weightbearing resting calcaneal stance positions. Conclusion: MAP1st provided reliable assessments of partial- and full-weightbearing first ray mobility. It should help investigators to explore the potential relationships between first ray function and aberrant foot biomechanics in future research. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective cohort study.