ReviewJournal of foot and ankle research2026
Australian Podiatry Research in Workforce and Education: 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
backgroundTo conduct a bibliographic analysis of English language research pertaining to podiatry workforce and education by Australian authors.
methodsThe Scopus database search was conducted to identify all Australian workforce and education-related articles published by podiatric authors in English from 1970 to 2024. Bibliometric analysis was performed using Biblioshiny, a web-based graphical interface for the bibliometric R package. Citations, journals, authors, institutions, and countries were described. Publications were manually categorised according to research type, level of evidence and funding source.
resultsThe search strategy yielded 105 eligible articles, which received a total of 975 citations and were published by 338 authors in 33 journals. The most frequent journal was Journal of Foot and Ankle Research (34 articles; 32%), and the most frequently cited was the University of South Australia (affiliation of 85 authors). Most Australian workforce and education articles published by podiatrists focused on health and social care services research (n = 60; 57%) and only five articles (5%) provided level I evidence. Fifty-six articles (53%) reported no research funding. Research generally fell under four themes.
conclusionWorkforce and education research make up a small percentage of podiatry-related research. Most are published in low-impact journals with low citations. The articles are highly collaborative, with multiple authors nationally and internationally. Studies are driven by academics with a vested interest in workforce and education issues, with little or no funding. There is a lack of research in continuing professional development educational activities and workforce in the private sector. Being a small profession, podiatry data may be missed in large allied health workforce studies. Podiatry workforce and education research must be driven by the profession, thereby creating opportunities for sustainable podiatry career growth.
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.