↓ Skip to main content

The reliability of non-invasive biophysical outcome measures for evaluating normal and hyperkeratotic foot skin

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
The reliability of non-invasive biophysical outcome measures for evaluating normal and hyperkeratotic foot skin
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13047-015-0083-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Farina Hashmi, Ciaran Wright, Christopher Nester, Sharon Lam

Abstract

Hyperkeratosis of foot skin is a common skin problem affecting people of different ages. The clinical presentation of this condition can range from dry flaky skin, which can lead to fissures, to hard callused skin which is often painful and debilitating. The purpose of this study was to test the reliability of certain non-invasive skin measurement devices on foot skin in normal and hyperkeratotic states, with a view to confirming their use as quantitative outcome measures in future clinical trials. Twelve healthy adult participants with a range of foot skin conditions (xerotic skin, heel fissures and plantar calluses) were recruited to the study. Measurements of normal and hyperkeratotic skin sites were taken using the following devices: Corneometer® CM 825, Cutometer® 580 MPA, Reviscometer® RVM 600, Visioline® VL 650 Quantiride® and Visioscan® VC 98, by two investigators on two consecutive days. The intra and inter rater reliability and standard error of measurement for each device was calculated. The data revealed the majority of the devices to be reliable measurement tools for normal and hyperkeratotic foot skin (ICC values > 0.6). The surface evaluation parameters for skin: SEsc and SEsm have greater reliability compared to the SEr measure. The Cutometer® is sensitive to soft tissue movement within the probe, therefore measurement of plantar soft tissue areas should be approached with caution. Reviscometer® measures on callused skin demonstrated an unusually high degree of error. These results confirm the intra and inter rater reliability of the Corneometer®, Cutometer®, Visioline® and Visioscan® in quantifying specific foot skin biophysical properties.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Unspecified 3 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 15%
Psychology 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2015.
All research outputs
#4,640,753
of 8,612,206 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#318
of 409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,218
of 227,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#23
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,612,206 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.