Systematic review: plantar fasciitis and prolonged weight bearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is one of the most common causes of foot pain. Work can involve factors that may predispose to foot pain. AIMS: To systematically review the evidence of the association between weight bearing (walking or standing) and PF among workers. METHODS: Literature search of relevant indexing databases from inception to May 2012, grey literature, websites of relevant organizations and reference lists for all identified articles. Two reviewers independently selected studies for full review, assessed methodological quality and graded evidence. Findings were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Four studies were included; all were assessed as high or unclear risk of bias. Three studies were case-control studies; two used clinic populations and one used volunteers. The other study was cross-sectional involving the workforce of an assembly plant. A number of associations between PF and risk factors were identified including sex, obesity, foot biomechanics and job factors (e.g. job tenure). Two case-control studies and the cross-sectional study found an association with weight bearing, but the assessment of weight bearing varied (e.g. time on feet, time walking or standing). There was low-quality evidence to confirm a causal relationship (Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) * grade). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found low-quality evidence of an association between PF and weight-bearing tasks such as walking and standing on hard surfaces. The only occupations specifically identified as having higher risk were those associated with the engine assembly plant. Further research is required to fully determine the association between weight bearing and PF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".