Musculoskeletal Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Plantar Fasciitis: An Accuracy and Diagnostic Yield Study

Figures & data

Table 1 Characteristics of Patients with Heel Pain

	Gender (Male/Female, n)	Age (Years)	Weight (kg)	Height (m)
Non PFis patients	36/28	41.5 ± 15.1	67.7 ± 12.7	1.70 ± 0.07
PFis patients	36/24	43.6 ± 10.1	71.6 ± 11.4	1.70 ± 0.08
P-value	0.672	0.793	0.212	0.921

Abbreviation: PFis, plantar fasciitis.

Figure 1 Patient flow.

Abbreviations: APTA, American Physical Therapy Association; PFis, plantar fasciitis.

Table 2 Comparison of Plantar Fascia Thickness and Young’s Modulus Between Two Groups of Patients

	Plantar Fascia Thickness (mm)	Young’s Modulus (kPa)
Non PFis patients	2.61 ± 0.64	100.29 ± 58.44
PFis patients	4.05 ± 0.74	55.92 ± 11.13
P-value	<0.001	<0.001

Abbreviation: PFis, plantar fasciitis.

Table 3 Intraobserver Reliability of Ultrasound Examination. CI, Confidence Interval

	Intraobserver Reliability (95% CI)
Plantar fascia thickness	0.98 (0.98–0.99)
Young’s modulus	0.99 (0.98–0.99)

Table 4 The Accuracy of Diagnosing Plantar Fasciitis Based on Musculoskeletal Ultrasound

	Optimal Cutoff Value	95% CI	AUC	Se(%)	Sp(%)	Youden Index
Thickness method	3.15 mm	0.877–0.973	0.925	100	81.3	0.813
Young’s modulus method	63.24 kPa	0.871–0.963	0.917	78.3	92.2	0.705
Combined diagnosis	/	0.947–1.000	0.973	93.3	93.8	0.871

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; AUC, area under the curve; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity.

Figure 2 Receiver-operating characteristic curves in the non plantar fasciitis and plantar fasciitis groups.

Table 5 Pearson Correlation Analysis Between Vas and Plantar Fascia Thickness or Young’s Modulus

	Pearson Correlation Coefficient	P-value
Plantar fascia thickness	0.91	<0.001
Young’s modulus	−0.55	<0.001