1,720,987 research outputs found
Relationship Between Obesity and Plantar Pressure Distribution in Youths with Down Syndrome
No full textObjective: This study aimed to characterize the effect of obesity on foot-ground contact in young individuals affected by Down syndrome (DS) during quiet upright stance.
Design: This is a cross-sectional study on 118 individuals with Down syndrome, 59 with obesity aged 3-18 yrs and 59 with normal weight, age- and sex-matched forming the control group. Both groups were evaluated while standing on a pressure-sensitive mat. Foot-ground contact was characterized using contact area and mean pressure calculated for the rearfoot, the midfoot, and the forefoot.
Results: The results show that obesity significantly influences the foot-ground interaction, with some differences related to sex. In particular, the females with obesity exhibited larger contact areas and higher plantar pressures (in the forefoot and the midfoot) with respect to the control group, whereas in the males with obesity, only the plantar pressures were found higher than those of the controls. Flatfoot is the prevalent arch type for both groups, but its incidence seems to be unrelated to obesity.
Conclusions: The modifications introduced by obesity in foot-ground contact pressure and area may represent a factor capable of aggravating existing negative podiatric issues associated with Down syndrome. Thus, planning periodical monitoring of foot-ground contact during childhood and adolescence is recommended to avoid possible problems related to adverse effects of repeated excessive mechanical stresses on the plantar region
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
