Table 2 Types of interventions
From: Exploring the potential of iPhone applications in podiatry: a comprehensive review
Study | Population | Method | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
Ege et al. [6] | 32 patients with symptomatic hallux valgus Mean age: not present Follow-up not present | - Two observers - Measurements of hallux valgus angle (HVA), intermetatarsal angle (IMA), and distal metatarsal articular angle (DMAA) using iPhone and computerized techniques - Computer-assisted digital angular measurements as reference standard | - Difference between iPhone and computerized measurements - Difference between first and second iPhone measurements for each observer - Inter- and intraobserver reliability of smartphone measurement method |
Williams et al. [11] | 20 health practitioners Mean age 40 (± 12) Follow-up not present | -Intra-rater reliability study - Two raters (novice and experienced) | - Comparison of digital inclinometer (DI) and TiltMeter app on an Apple iPhone for measuring ankle range of motion (ROM) - Evaluation of intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of DI and TiltMeter app - Measurement conducted in bent knee (BK) and straight leg (SL) positions - Concurrent validity established between DI and TiltMeter app |
Rasmussen et al. [8] | 36 individuals with foot ulcers Mean age: not present Follow-up not present | - Intra- and inter-individual variability study - Four specialists rated the ulcers and filled out a questionnaire | - Comparison of a new portable imaging device (PID) and iPhone 4 s for telemedical use in ulcer assessment - Evaluation of intra-rater and inter-rater agreement between PID and iPhone images compared to clinical assessment as the “gold standard” |
Aragón-Sánchez et al. [9] | Set of 25 individuals with foot and leg ulcers Mean age: not present Follow-up not present | - Digital photographs taken with iPhone 6S - Four raters: head of the department, wound care nurse, physician, and medical student | - Evaluation of wound area measurement using digital photographs - Utilization of ImageJ 1.45 s freeware for visualizing and measuring wound area |
Romero Morales et al. [10] | 33 healthy elderly patients older than 65 years Mean age 71 (± 3.6) Follow-up not present | - Descriptive repeated-measures study - Evaluation of ankle dorsiflexion ROM using Leg Motion device, goniometer, tape measure, and smartphone with inclinometer app | - Assessment of the validity and reliability of the Leg Motion device for measuring ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) - Testing the reliability of Leg Motion device |
Balsalobre Fernández et al. [4] | 21 participants Mean age 28.6 (± 2.3) Follow-up not present | - Two experienced raters—iPhone level function (Measure app)—Digital inclinometer | - Intra-rater reliability: ICC > 0.85—Inter-rater reliability: ICC > 0.90—Concurrent validity: ICC = 1.0—Bland Altman plot validity: ICC = 0.84 |
Banwell et al. [7] | 12 healthy participants (age = 28.6 ± 2.3 years) Mean age 22.9 (± 1.4) Follow-up not present | -Weight-bearing lunge test with each leg performed in five separate occasions -Comparison of 120 angles measured with the digital inclinometer and the Dorsiflex app | -Measurement of ankle dorsiflexion using a professional digital inclinometer and the Dorsiflex iPhone app -Validity, reliability, and accuracy analysis |
Farhan et al. [5] | 10 healthy participants Mean age 27.8 (± 9.3) Follow-up not present | Lower leg assessment using 7 3D scanners: Artec Eva (Eva), Structure Sensor (SS I), Structure Sensor Mark II (SS II), Sense 3D Scanner (Sense), Vorum Spectra (Spectra), Trnio 3D Scanner App on iPhone 11 (Trnio 11), and Trnio 3D Scanner App on iPhone 12 (Trnio 12) | - Mean accuracy ranged from 6.4 to 230.8% - SS I, SS II, and Eva had acceptable accuracy - Bland and Altman plots showed the smallest mean bias and LoA for Eva, SS I, and SS II - Mean speed ranged from 20.8 to 329.6 s - Eva, SS I, and SS II were identified as the most accurate and fastest 3D scanners for capturing foot, ankle, and lower leg morphology, suitable for AFO fabrication |