Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 5;21:722. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03740-1

Table 2.

Comparison of muscle strength and acceleration time in both ankles between the patients with plantar fasciitis and normal controls

Affected ankles Unaffected ankles
PF patients group Normal control group p-value PF patients group Normal control group p-value
GCM strength 30 ± 11.4 41 ± 14.4 0.278 37 ± 10.9 41 ± 11.5 0.633
Quadriceps strength 115 ± 34.7 144 ± 26.1 0.005 a 126 ± 34.8 141 ± 21.9 0.110
Hamstring strength 61 ± 20.4 68 ± 12.7 0.182 74 ± 16.9 77 ± 8.2 0.370
GCM AT 30 ± 11.4 41 ± 14.4 0.009 a 37 ± 10.9 41 ± 11.5 0.278
Quadriceps AT 64 ± 25.2 48 ± 14.4 0.012 a 54 ± 25.2 51 ± 14 0.652
Hamstring AT 77 ± 21.9 56 ± 15.6 0.001 a 60 ± 13.7 58 ± 17.7 0.629
Forefoot pressure 70 ± 27.7 46 ± 15.7 0.001 a 52 ± 18.7 46 ± 15.7 0.277
Hindfoot pressure 65 ± 22.8 36 ± 15.2 0.000 a 44 ± 18.6 36 ± 15.2 0.115
Foot posture (VV index) 0.2 ± 0.3 0 ± 0.2 0.039 a −0.1 ± 0.3 0 ± 0.2 0.861

Abbreviations: PF plantar fasciitis, GCM gastrocnemius, AT acceleration time, VV index valgus/varus index

Note: The values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation

Measurement units for muscle strength and muscle reaction time were Nm kg− 1 × 100 and milliseconds, respectively

aStatistically significant