ReviewJournal of foot and ankle research2026
Australian Podiatry Research in Paediatrics: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to undertake a bibliographic analysis of foot and lower leg research relating to paediatric podiatry by Australian or affiliated Australian authors.
methodsThe Scopus database search was conducted to identify all foot and lower limb research articles involving an Australian cohort of participants, published by Australian authors, or those affiliated with Australian institutions, pertaining to paediatric podiatry, in English from 1970 to 2024. We used bibliometric analysis through an open-source tool based on the R language. We described citations, journals, authors and institutions; countries and publications were manually categorised according to research type, level of evidence and funding source.
resultsThe search strategy yielded 280 eligible articles, which received a total of 8331 citations and were published by 793 authors in 104 journals. The most frequent journal was Gait & Posture (35 articles; 12%), and the most published institution was the University of Sydney (170 affiliations). Most of the Australian paediatric articles published focused on detection, screening and diagnosis (n = 70, 25%) and only 33 articles (12%) provided Level I evidence. Seventy-three paediatric articles (25%) received Category 1 funding; 154 articles (55%) reported no research funding.
conclusionPaediatric podiatry research represents 17% of Australian foot and lower limb research. Despite the smaller population base, paediatric research attracts a high level of engagement, moderate citation rates and low funding rates when compared to adult population studies. Paediatric podiatry research is primarily produced via Level 3 evidence. This highlights the need for an increase in the robustness of research methodologies in paediatric podiatry research to strengthen the quality and applicability of evidence informing clinical care for children and adolescent populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.