Risk factors and associated factors for calcaneal apophysitis (Sever’s disease): a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to identify the potential intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors (RFs), associated factors (AFs) and consequences of developing calcaneal apophysitis (CA). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science and Evidence, searched from inception to April 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies that were conducted in patients younger than 18 years who were exposed to RFs or who presented with factors associated with developing CA. Studies in languages other than English or Spanish were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers worked independently to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (adapted version) was used. RESULTS: A total of 736 studies were identified and 11 observational studies fully met the inclusion criteria, including 1265 participants with a mean age of 10.72 years. Four studies identified extrinsic factors, 10 identified intrinsic factors and three identified both. The extrinsic and intrinsic RFs, AFs and consequences of CA include limitation of ankle dorsiflexion, foot alignment, stiffness and mobility of the midfoot, plantar pressures and ground reaction force, body mass index, age, gender, presence of other osteochondroses and practice of sport. The risk of bias varied, being either moderate or low. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the factors and consequences associated with CA (Sever's disease), ankle dorsiflexion limitation is the most frequent intrinsic factor studied, followed by peak plantar pressures and foot malalignment. However, disagreements between the investigators of the included studies were found; in some cases, there is a lack of unanimity between different studies as to which factors are considered to be RFs, AFs and consequences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021246366.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".