A Critical Review of Castro-Méndez et al.’s 2025 Systematic Review on Forensic Gait Analysis | Find Your Stride | Edinburgh Podiatrist

Introduction

Recent research by Castro-Méndez et al. (2025) peaked our interest; forensic gait analysis has long hovered in that grey zone between fascinating potential and methodological controversy. The systematic review by Castro-Méndez and colleagues (2025) steps directly into this debate, examining whether angular measurements or observational gait characteristics provide the most reliable method for identifying individuals on CCTV footage. Their work pulls together 25 years of literature in an effort to evaluate the current “gold standard” in forensic gait analysis.

A recent study examined whether angular measurements or observational gait characteristics provided the most reliable method for identifying individuals on CCTV footage.

What the Review Does Well

1. Clear Methodology Grounded in PRISMA Standards

The authors present a robust search strategy across six databases, supported by a clear PRISMA flow diagram (page 6 image) showing the narrowing of 762 initial articles down to just 9 eligible studies. This transparency strengthens confidence in the rigour of their selection.

2. Direct Comparison of Two Distinct Forensic Approaches

The paper’s central aim is well-defined:

• Angular gait measurements (joint angles, ranges of motion)

  versus

• Observational analysis of unique gait traits

The inclusion of detailed tables on pages 3–4 summarising each study’s design, results, and limitations is extremely useful for practitioners who want to quickly grasp what evidence exists and what doesn’t.

3. Recognition of Real-World Variability

One of the strongest insights comes from Ludwig et al. (2016), who demonstrated that intra-individual gait patterns fluctuate depending on footwear, fatigue, and even mood. This aligns with what many podiatrists see clinically: gait is adaptable, and therefore difficult to codify into rigid angular metrics.

Key Findings - And Why They Matter for Podiatrists

Angular Measurements: Limited Reliability

The authors conclude there is not enough conclusive evidence to consider angular measurement a dependable forensic tool. Across studies, results were inconsistent, heavily dependent on laboratory conditions, and vulnerable to:

• Clothing and footwear interference

• Poor camera angles

• Partial gait cycle capture

• Marker placement inconsistencies

In short: angular analysis works best in the lab, rarely where crimes occur.

Observational Analysis: The Stronger Method

In contrast, multiple studies reviewed show that experienced analysts consistently outperform novices, achieving higher accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility when analysing gait visually.

One example: Raymond et al. (2013) showed a 71% correct identification rate among experienced analysts using CCTV footage, significantly higher than non-experts.

The authors therefore affirm observational analysis as the most reliable current method, especially when using structured tools like the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool, which demonstrated reproducibility rates around 75–80%.

Where the Review Falls Short

1. Evidence Base Is Thin

Despite the rigorous search process, only nine observational studies over 25 years met the authors’ criteria, a surprisingly small body of evidence for such a widely discussed forensic method.

The review acknowledges this limitation directly, noting the absence of:

• RCTs

• Cohort studies

• Case–control designs

This means the conclusions, although sensible, rest on Level III evidence.

2. Over-Reliance on a Small Pool of Researchers

A notable portion of included studies come from the same forensic gait research groups. This concentration may inadvertently bias the field toward specific methodologies or interpretations.

3. Lack of Diverse Real-World Footage

Most included studies used lab-based simulations or controlled CCTV setups. Very few reflect the messy, low-resolution, multi-angle footage typical in actual forensic cases.

Critical Takeaways for Podiatry Professionals

1. Observational Expertise Still Matters More Than Tech

While technology continues to advance (AI-based gait recognition is mentioned but excluded from this review), the most dependable method remains a trained human analysing unique gait characteristics.

2. Angular Measurements Are Not Court-Ready

Without consistency and reproducibility across real-world conditions, angular metrics should be used cautiously in forensic reporting.

3. Gait Analysis Is a Complement—Not a Standalone Identifier

As the authors highlight, gait evidence cannot reach the level of certainty provided by DNA or fingerprints, but it remains valuable for suspect exclusion and for supporting broader forensic narratives.

Final Verdict

Castro-Méndez et al. provide a thoughtful, well-structured contribution to forensic podiatry literature. Their biggest success lies in clarifying a misconception; angular measurements are not the current gold standard. Instead, expert observational gait analysis continues to be the most reliable and court-tested method available.

However, the field urgently needs:

• Higher-quality research

• Larger sample sizes

• More real-world CCTV studies

• Broader international collaboration

Until then, it seems podiatrists engaged in forensic work should lean heavily on observational expertise, structured tools, and biomechanical training, while treating angular measurements as supportive rather than definitive evidence.

Find Your Stride!

Citation:

Castro-Méndez, A., Tovaruela-Carrión, N., Regife-Fernández, L., García-Mora, S., Vázquez-Castro, M., & Alvarez-Cordero, J. (2025). Forensic podiatry in the identification of gait by CCTV: A systematic review. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-025-01022-7