An Overview of Australian Podiatry Research: A Bibliometric Review

Fuente: Wiley Open Access
Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Peta Tehan, Ameer Nor Azhar, Helen Banwell, Shan Bergin, James Charles, Fiona Hawke, Malia Ho, Sheree Hurn, Michelle Kaminski, Polly Lim, Saraid Martin, Hylton B. Menz, John Osborne, Benjamin Peterson, Dean Samaras, Cylie Williams, Matthew R. Carroll
Format: Artículo Open Access
Published: Wiley 2026
Subjects:
Online Access:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1867018074606010368
author Peta Tehan
Ameer Nor Azhar
Helen Banwell
Shan Bergin
James Charles
Fiona Hawke
Malia Ho
Sheree Hurn
Michelle Kaminski
Polly Lim
Saraid Martin
Hylton B. Menz
John Osborne
Benjamin Peterson
Dean Samaras
Cylie Williams
Matthew R. Carroll
author_facet Peta Tehan
Ameer Nor Azhar
Helen Banwell
Shan Bergin
James Charles
Fiona Hawke
Malia Ho
Sheree Hurn
Michelle Kaminski
Polly Lim
Saraid Martin
Hylton B. Menz
John Osborne
Benjamin Peterson
Dean Samaras
Cylie Williams
Matthew R. Carroll
Peta Tehan
Ameer Nor Azhar
Helen Banwell
Shan Bergin
James Charles
Fiona Hawke
Malia Ho
Sheree Hurn
Michelle Kaminski
Polly Lim
Saraid Martin
Hylton B. Menz
John Osborne
Benjamin Peterson
Dean Samaras
Cylie Williams
Matthew R. Carroll
collection Wiley Open Access
contents An Overview of Australian Podiatry Research: A Bibliometric Review Peta Tehan Ameer Nor Azhar Helen Banwell Shan Bergin James Charles Fiona Hawke Malia Ho Sheree Hurn Michelle Kaminski Polly Lim Saraid Martin Hylton B. Menz John Osborne Benjamin Peterson Dean Samaras Cylie Williams Matthew R. Carroll Journal of Foot and Ankle Research ABSTRACT Background Podiatrists are the primary health professionals associated with assessment, diagnosis and management of lower limb problems. Research is critical in informing evidence‐based practice. As part of a national research priorities project, this bibliometric review aimed to map all Australian podiatry‐relevant research from 1970 to 2024 and explore volume over time, authors, institutions, level of evidence, funding sources and categories of research. Methods Podiatry‐relevant research was categorised into 10 streams: dermatology, diabetes‐related foot disease, gerontology, musculoskeletal and sports, paediatrics, rheumatology, surgery, workforce and education, First Nations foot health and neurological and vascular disease. A systematic search of the literature was conducted in each stream up until December 2024. Meta‐data from Scopus were analysed in Biblioshiny, where publications volume, authors, institutions, journals and collaborations were described. Each publication was also categorised for level of evidence using the National Health and Medical Research Council criteria, research type using the United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration Health Research Classification System and funding source using Higher Education Research Data Collection specifications. Results A total of 1641 publications were included across all research streams. Steady increases in publication volume occurred over the past 20 years, with diabetes‐related foot disease yielding the highest volume ( n  = 335), followed by musculoskeletal ( n  = 308) and paediatrics ( n  = 280). Musculoskeletal and sports research demonstrated the highest proportion of level I evidence (22%), whereas most streams were dominated by level IV evidence. The majority of research across all streams received no funding support, ranging from 32% unfunded in First Nations foot health research to 87% in surgical research. Rheumatology achieved the highest proportion of competitive funding (47% Category 1). The most frequent research categories were aetiology, detection and screening and evaluation of treatments. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Research was the most frequent publication source, with 140 (8%) of total publications. Conclusion Australian podiatry‐relevant research has grown substantially, particularly over the past 2 decades. However, significant disparities exist in volume, evidence quality and funding across different streams, with most research conducted without external funding support, highlighting the need for strategic investment to enhance evidence generation in key areas of podiatry practice. 10.1002/jfa2.70113 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jfa2.70113
format Artículo Open Access
id wiley_oa_10_1002_jfa2_70113
institution Wiley Open Access
license_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
publishDate 2026
publisher Wiley
record_format wiley_oa
spellingShingle An Overview of Australian Podiatry Research: A Bibliometric Review
Peta Tehan
Ameer Nor Azhar
Helen Banwell
Shan Bergin
James Charles
Fiona Hawke
Malia Ho
Sheree Hurn
Michelle Kaminski
Polly Lim
Saraid Martin
Hylton B. Menz
John Osborne
Benjamin Peterson
Dean Samaras
Cylie Williams
Matthew R. Carroll
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
An Overview of Australian Podiatry Research: A Bibliometric Review Peta Tehan Ameer Nor Azhar Helen Banwell Shan Bergin James Charles Fiona Hawke Malia Ho Sheree Hurn Michelle Kaminski Polly Lim Saraid Martin Hylton B. Menz John Osborne Benjamin Peterson Dean Samaras Cylie Williams Matthew R. Carroll Journal of Foot and Ankle Research ABSTRACT Background Podiatrists are the primary health professionals associated with assessment, diagnosis and management of lower limb problems. Research is critical in informing evidence‐based practice. As part of a national research priorities project, this bibliometric review aimed to map all Australian podiatry‐relevant research from 1970 to 2024 and explore volume over time, authors, institutions, level of evidence, funding sources and categories of research. Methods Podiatry‐relevant research was categorised into 10 streams: dermatology, diabetes‐related foot disease, gerontology, musculoskeletal and sports, paediatrics, rheumatology, surgery, workforce and education, First Nations foot health and neurological and vascular disease. A systematic search of the literature was conducted in each stream up until December 2024. Meta‐data from Scopus were analysed in Biblioshiny, where publications volume, authors, institutions, journals and collaborations were described. Each publication was also categorised for level of evidence using the National Health and Medical Research Council criteria, research type using the United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration Health Research Classification System and funding source using Higher Education Research Data Collection specifications. Results A total of 1641 publications were included across all research streams. Steady increases in publication volume occurred over the past 20 years, with diabetes‐related foot disease yielding the highest volume ( n  = 335), followed by musculoskeletal ( n  = 308) and paediatrics ( n  = 280). Musculoskeletal and sports research demonstrated the highest proportion of level I evidence (22%), whereas most streams were dominated by level IV evidence. The majority of research across all streams received no funding support, ranging from 32% unfunded in First Nations foot health research to 87% in surgical research. Rheumatology achieved the highest proportion of competitive funding (47% Category 1). The most frequent research categories were aetiology, detection and screening and evaluation of treatments. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Research was the most frequent publication source, with 140 (8%) of total publications. Conclusion Australian podiatry‐relevant research has grown substantially, particularly over the past 2 decades. However, significant disparities exist in volume, evidence quality and funding across different streams, with most research conducted without external funding support, highlighting the need for strategic investment to enhance evidence generation in key areas of podiatry practice. 10.1002/jfa2.70113 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title An Overview of Australian Podiatry Research: A Bibliometric Review
topic Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
url https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jfa2.70113