An observational study in Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction, Plantar Fascia Thickness and Pedobarography, sponsored by Dokuz Eylul University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Open to participants aged 18 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-21.
Sponsored by Dokuz Eylul University · Observational
This study aims to compare plantar fascia thickness and pedobarometric parameters between individuals with sacroiliak joint dysfunction and healty individuals.A total of 52 adult volunteers aged 18 to 50 years were included in the study, with 26 pariticipants in the sacroiliac joint dysfunction group and 26 participants in the healty control group.Participants with sacroiliac joint dysfunction were identified based on clinical examination and sacroiliac joint pain provocation tests. Foot posture was evaluated using the Foot Posture Index-6 (FPI-6), and participants with neutral foot posture were included. Plantar fascia thickness of both feet was measured using ultrasound. Static foot pressure measurements were performed during standing with eyes open and closed, and dynamic foot pressure measurements were performed during walking using a pedobarometric system. The study compares plantar fascia thickness and pedobarometric parameters between the sacroiliak joint dysfunction and control groups. It also investigates the relationship between plantar fascia thickness and pedobarometric parameters.
This cross-sectional, comparative case-control study was designed to compare plantar fascia thickness and pedobarometric parameters between patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD) and healthy controls, and to examine the relationship between plantar fascia thickness and pedobarometric parameters in the patient group.
Patients aged 18 to 50 years who presented with low back pain to the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation outpatient clinic of Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Medicine and met the eligibility criteria were enrolled consecutively. The control group consisted of healthy volunteers without SIJD, selected to be similar to the patient group in age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Controls were recruited from the staff of the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation and through announcements in these units. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The minimum sample size, calculated with G*Power 3.1.9.7 (d = 0.80, alpha = 0.05, power = 80%), was 26 participants per group (52 in total).
Age, sex, occupation, height, weight, BMI, weekly exercise duration, daily step count, comorbidities, lower limb length discrepancy, and dominant foot were recorded. All assessments were completed on the same day by the same investigator, who was not blinded to group status.
SIJD was diagnosed in patients with pain around the posterior superior iliac spine when at least three of six provocation tests (FABER, Gaenslen, thigh thrust, sacral thrust, compression, and distraction) were positive on the same side. A test was considered positive when it reproduced the patient's familiar pain, and the affected side was recorded.
Foot posture was assessed with the Foot Posture Index-6 (FPI-6), which consists of six items with a total score ranging from -12 to +12. Only participants with scores between 0 and +5 (neutral foot posture) in both feet were included.
Plantar fascia thickness was measured by ultrasonography (GE Versana Premier, 4.2-13 MHz linear probe) with the participant lying prone. Measurements were taken in the sagittal plane at the calcaneal insertion of the fascia, and the mean of three measurements was recorded for each foot. Echogenicity, calcaneal spur, perifascial fluid, and Doppler vascularity were also recorded.
Pedobarometric assessment was performed barefoot on a TekScan MatScan pressure mat. Static measurements lasted 30 seconds and were taken with eyes open and eyes closed. Dynamic measurements were taken with the three-step protocol in both walking directions, so that each foot was recorded separately. Each measurement was repeated three times and averaged. Center of force (CoF) parameters (ellipse area, path length, variability, and anteroposterior and mediolateral excursion) and load distribution (% body weight) were recorded.
Data collection has been completed, and statistical analyses will be performed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 27. Depending on the distribution of the data, continuous variables will be compared between groups with the independent-samples t test or the Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical variables with the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Associations between plantar fascia thickness and pedobarometric parameters will be assessed with Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis.Multivariable linear regression analysis will be used to identify factors associated with plantar fascia thickness.The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate procedure will be applied for multiple comparions where appropriate. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals will be reported together with p values, and p \< 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.
Dokuz Eylul University is the lead sponsor of 257 studies on the registry; 34 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction were enrolled consecutively from individuals aged 18 to 50 years who presented with low back pain to the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation outpatient clinic of Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Medicine. Healthy volunteers of the same age range were recruited as controls from the staff of Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation and through announcements in these units
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Sacroiliac joint dysfunction group:
Healthy control group:
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients with low back pain who were diagnosed with sacroiliac joint dysfunction when at least three of six pain provocation tests were positive on the same side. No intervention was applied. Plantar fascia thickness was measured by ultrasonography, and static and dynamic pedobarometric assessments were performed.
Healthy volunteers without sacroiliac joint dysfunction, selected to be similar to the patient group in age, sex, and body mass index. No intervention was applied. Participants underwent the same ultrasonographic and pedobarometric assessments as the patient group.
Plantar Fascia Thickness
Plantar fascia thickness was measured by ultrasonography in the sagittal plane at the calcaneal insertion of the fascia. Three measurements were taken for each foot, and their mean was recorded in millimeters.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Center of Force Ellipse Area
Center of force (CoF) ellipse area was measured with a TekScan MatScan pressure mat under static (eyes open and eyes closed) and dynamic (three-step protocol) conditions. Each measurement was repeated three times, and the mean was recorded in square centimeters.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Center of Force Path Length
Center of force (CoF) path length was measured with a TekScan MatScan pressure mat under static (eyes open and eyes closed) and dynamic (three-step protocol) conditions. Each measurement was repeated three times, and the mean was recorded in centimeters.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Center of Force Variability
Center of force (CoF) variability was measured with a TekScan MatScan pressure mat under static (eyes open and eyes closed) and dynamic (three-step protocol) conditions. Each measurement was repeated three times, and the mean was recorded in centimeters.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Center of Force Anteroposterior Excursion
Center of Force Anteroposterior Excursion was measured with a TekScan MatScan pressure mat under static (eyes open and eyes closed) and dynamic (three-step protocol) conditions. Each measurement was repeated three times, and the mean was recorded in centimeters.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Center of Force Mediolateral Excursion
Center of Force Mediolateral Excursion was measured with a TekScan MatScan pressure mat under static (eyes open and eyes closed) and dynamic (three-step protocol) conditions. Each measurement was repeated three times, and the mean was recorded in centimeters.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Total Foot Load
The percentage of body weight borne by each foot was measured with a TekScan MatScan pressure mat under static (eyes open and eyes closed) and dynamic (three-step protocol) conditions. Each measurement was repeated three times, and the mean was recorded as a percentage of body weight.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Forefoot Load
The percentage of body weight borne by the forefoot region of each foot was measured with a TekScan MatScan pressure mat under static (eyes open and eyes closed) and dynamic (three-step protocol) conditions. Each measurement was repeated three times, and the mean was recorded as a percentage of body weight.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Rearfoot Load
The percentage of body weight borne by the rearfoot region of each foot was measured with a TekScan MatScan pressure mat under static (eyes open and eyes closed) and dynamic (three-step protocol) conditions. Each measurement was repeated three times, and the mean was recorded as a percentage of body weight.
Time frame: At enrollment (single assessment visit)
Plan to share: No — Individual participant data will not be shared, as the protocol approved by the ethics committee specifies that study data will not be shared with third parties.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.