Guest Editorial: Dennis Shavelson DPM

The case for researching biomechanics and human movement using a stochastic model in a
peer reviewed journal to generate qualitative evidence

Dennis Shavelson DPM

The Problem

The Evidence Based Practice (EBP) of biomechanics and human movement (hereafter BHM) has
been handcuffed by a lack of peer reviewed, high level, valid and clinically applicable evidence
that has dampened the ability to use Sackett’s model of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM)
clinically(1,2,3).

Current journal research protocols for EBM follow a deterministic model. In this model there are
one or two dependent variables to be investigated and simultaneously all independent variables
that could dampen the results are eliminated or controlled with an algorythm or statistical
fomulae. The deterministic model has both a high intratester (the same tester repeatedly gets the
same results) and intertester (different testers repeatedly get the same results) efficiency a=in
order for it to be deemed high level. Because of the vast numbers of independent variables that
exist when researching BHM(4), high level research has been forced to be complaint oriented
(limited to signs or symptoms such as pain, an injury or a deformity(5) reducing its ability to have
clinical applicability on a case to case basis. Valid longitudinal studies in biomechanics have
been attempted but few make Sackett’s high levels of evidence criteria due to changes in
independent variables over time that cannot be controlled or eliminated. One of these few, The
Framingham Study(6) is so old and outdated that its statistics are being called obsolete. Current
EBM models cannot and have not investigated prevention, performance enhancement and quality
of life upgrades (Salutogenetic dependent variables) leaving clinicians waiting for a clinical
complaint to justify seeing patients instead of diagnosing and treating underpinning precursor
probabilities before, during or after a complaint in an integrative, holistic sense.

Summarily, a failure to isolate the controlled variables or to conduct any study long term, in any
experimental design seriously compromises the internal validity of any deterministic project
ruining the experiment, wasting time and resources, and damaging the researcher's reputation (7)

Stochastic models, on the other hand possess some inherent randomness and accepted
independent variables as exist in nature and life. The same set of parameter values and initial
conditions will lead to an ensemble of different outputs. The natural world is buffeted by
stochasticity. Stochastic models are considerably more qualitative than quantitative. Stochastic
biomechanical modeling is an effective and efficient research method for investigating the
random outcomes of human movement. This method allows investigators to determine the risk
for an injury without following subjects to obtain actual injury cases. This enables the execution
of the study to be less complicated, less labor intensive, less time consuming, and less expensive
in comparison to traditional methods. Also, stochastic biomechanical modeling methods allow
investigators to identify risk factors with cause-and-effect relationships to the injury in the
absence of any observed injuries. Stochastic biomechanical modeling method has been
successfully applied to studies on the variation of human movements and prevention of a variety
of musculoskeletal system injuries (8).

Admittedly, stochastic models have a lower level of dependability and predictability than their
deterministic cousins but they have clinical value when measurable, reproducible and clinically
applicable peer reviewed evidence simply does not exist. The probability distributions of
qualitative models offer starting platforms to diagnosis and treatment BHM on a case to case
basis that depending on the education, skill level and expertise of the treating medical
professional or therapist leads to better diagnosis and better treatment planning and
implementation clinically then an absence of evidence (8).

The Solution

As I practice and research lower extremity biomechanics, architecture and body kinetics and
kinematics in stance and moving when weighted, the only method of research that can produce
longitudinal, viable and applicable clinical roadmaps for care is often Stochastic. I submit that
cohorts can be developed with inherited, anatomical and systematic traits such as foot type, limb
length inequality or excessive and limited joint ranges of motion can, in the face of independent
variables on a case to case basis, can provide a body of stochastic evidence that can fill the void
that exists in the peer reviewed literature when dealing with complex biomechanical and human
movement issues like the foot and posture in closed chain with valid and applicable tools.
My take is that we need a new journal that peer reviews stochastic, well planned and executed
qualitative study of subjects like BHM as scientifically and evidence based as possible. I suggest
The Journal of Closed Chain Structure and Function of the Foot & Posture.

The Foot Centering Typing System

As an example, and with bias as I am its inventor, the foot centering foot typing system(9)
classifies all feet into five common foot types each with its own characteristic weaknesses and
strengths(10). Supinatory and pronatory positions of the end ranges of motion of the critical closed
chain joints of the rearfoot and forefoot are measured qualitatively on their dominant anatomical
planes (the frontal plane for the rearfoot and the sagittal plane of the forefoot) and the total range
of motion between the supinatory end range of motion (SERM) and the pronatory end range of
motion are qualitatively measured as low, moderate or high. Treatment is designed to reduce
unwanted positioning in closed chain in the rearfoot and forefoot and to reduce biomechanically
pernicious ranges of high and low motion in the rearfoot and forefoot, foot type specific,
regardless of independent variables.

The foot centering foot typing system has high intratester and high intertester testing results.
Foot typing allows for the development of risk factors as well as preventive, performance
enhancing and quality of life upgrading when researching biomechanics and human movement
because maintaining more optimal function position and ranges of rearfoot and forefoot end
ranges of motion drives stability, support, strength, symmetry and balance to the lower extremity
and the posture in closed chain.

References:

1. Shavelson D: Biomechanics EBM Part I: Where Does Biomechanics EBM Stand; The
Foot in Closed Chain; April 30, 2010, Present Podiatry E-zine
2. Shavelson D: Biomechanics EBM Part II: Biomechanics Evidence Based Practice
(EBP); The Foot in Closed Chain; June 29, 2010, Present Podiatry E-zine
3. Shavelson D: Biomechanics EBM Part III: The Levels of Evidence in EBM/EBP; The
Foot in Closed Chain; August 2m 2010, Present Podiatry E-zine
4. Shavelson D: Resistance training (RT): a meta-analysis of the existing EBM, EC
Orthopedics, 9(7): 434-457.
5. De Schepper J, Van Alsenoy K, Roosen P, et al: Intratest Reliability in Determining the
Subtalar Joint Axis Using the Palpation Technique Described by K. Kirby; Journal of
the American Podiatric Medical Association, March 2012;102(2):122-9
6. Galica A, Hagedorn T, Hillstrom H et al: Hallux valgus and plantar pressure loading:
the Framingham foot study; J foot Ankle Res, Oct 20 2013, 06;42, published online
7. http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/henrichsenl/ResearchMethods/RM_2_14.html
Henrickson D: Research Methods: Planning: Variables; British Columbia Library Open
Ended Texts; Chapter 6
8. Lin, C.-F., et al., A stochastic biomechanical model for risk and risk factors of non-
contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Journal of Biomechanics (2009), 12, 1-6
9. Shmulevich I, Aitchison J: Deterministic and stochastic models of genetic regulatory
networks; Methods Enzymol, April 2009; 467: 335-356
10. Shavelson D: A Closer Look At Neoteric Biomechanics; Podiatry Today, September
2007; Vol 20 (9), 60-66