Purpose
This platform provides continuously updated summaries of evidence addressing some of the most important questions in foot and ankle injury management. It operates as a living evidence resource, combining systematic review methodology with continuous evidence surveillance to ensure that conclusions reflect the current totality of available research.
All included studies undergo eligibility assessment (PICO), methodological appraisal (PEDro), and quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis / GRADE) using predefined protocols. By integrating systematic database searching with community-assisted study identification, the platform reduces delays in evidence incorporation and ensures that summaries remain current, complete, and clinically meaningful.
The aim is to provide transparent, rigorous, and accessible summaries of the best available evidence to support clinical decision-making, research, and guideline development
Methodological Lead
This platform is led by Professor Chris Bleakley, a clinical researcher specialising in systematic review methodology, meta-analysis, and the evaluation of rehabilitation interventions. He has over 20 years of experience in evidence synthesis and has led numerous systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, with more than 200 peer-reviewed publications. He also has a clinical interest in foot and ankle injury.
He oversees all methodological aspects of the platform, including study eligibility assessment, risk of bias appraisal, and evidence synthesis, ensuring that all conclusions reflect predefined scientific standards.
View publication record:
Research Gate → Chris Bleakley
How this differs from traditional reviews
Traditional systematic reviews provide rigorous and valuable summaries of evidence, but they represent the state of knowledge at a single point in time. Once published, they are not routinely updated, and important new studies may not be incorporated for prolonged periods. As a result, evidence summaries may become incomplete or outdated as new research emerges.
This platform operates as a living evidence resource. Rather than producing static summaries, it continuously monitors for new studies and incorporates eligible evidence through scheduled updates. This ensures that conclusions reflect the current totality of available evidence, not just the evidence available at the time of the original review.
A key feature of this platform is its structured evidence surveillance model. In addition to regular database searches, clinicians, researchers, and other stakeholders may submit potentially eligible studies. All submissions undergo independent methodological assessment using predefined eligibility criteria and risk of bias appraisal before inclusion. This approach improves completeness of evidence identification while maintaining methodological rigor.
The platform also places emphasis on the clinical interpretability and robustness of findings. In addition to pooled effect estimates and certainty ratings using established frameworks such as GRADE, it evaluates the stability of statistical conclusions using measures such as the fragility index and susceptibility index. These analyses help determine whether statistically significant findings are robust or vulnerable to small changes in outcome data or missing information.
By combining continuous surveillance, structured methodological governance, and transparent updating, this platform reduces delays between evidence generation and evidence synthesis. This ensures that summaries remain current, complete, and clinically meaningful.