Literature DB >> 25015390

Comparison of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS).

Maria C Cöster1, Björn E Rosengren2, Ann Bremander3, Lars Brudin4, Magnus K Karlsson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) is a patient-reported outcome measure, while the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS) is a clinician-based score, both used for evaluation of foot and ankle disorders. The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric properties of these 2 scoring systems.
METHODS: A total of 95 patients with great toe disorders and 111 patients with ankle or hindfoot disorders completed the 2 scores before and after surgery. We evaluated time to complete the scores in seconds, correlations between scores with Spearman's correlation coefficient (r s), floor and ceiling effects by proportion of individuals who reached the minimum or maximum values, test-retest reliability and interobserver reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), internal consistency by Cronbach's coefficient alpha (CA), and responsiveness by effect size (ES). Data are provided as correlation coefficients, means, and standard deviations.
RESULTS: SEFAS was completed 3 times faster than AOFAS. The scores correlated with an r s of .49 for great toe disorders and .67 for ankle/hindfoot disorders (both P < .001). None of the scores had any floor or ceiling effect. SEFAS test-retest ICC values measured 1 week apart were .89 for great toe and .92 for ankle/hindfoot disorders, while the corresponding ICC values for AOFAS were .57 and .75. AOFAS interobserver reliability ICC values were .70 for great toe and .81 for ankle/hindfoot disorders. SEFAS CA values were .85 for great toe and .86 for ankle/hindfoot disorders, while the corresponding CA values for AOFAS were .15 and .42. SEFAS ES values were 1.15 for great toe and 1.39 for ankle/hindfoot disorders, while the corresponding ES values for AOFAS were 1.05 and 1.73.
CONCLUSION: As SEFAS showed similar or better outcome in our tests and was completed 3 times faster than AOFAS, we recommend SEFAS for evaluation of patients with foot and ankle disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AOFAS; SEFAS; ankle; comparison; foot; hindfoot; reliability; responsiveness; score; validity

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25015390     DOI: 10.1177/1071100714543647

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Foot Ankle Int        ISSN: 1071-1007            Impact factor:   2.827


  16 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases.

Authors:  Yuanxi Jia; Hsiaomin Huang; Joel J Gagnier
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Patient-perceived outcomes after subtalar arthroereisis with bioabsorbable implants for flexible flatfoot in growing age: a 4-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Cesare Faldini; Antonio Mazzotti; Alessandro Panciera; Valentina Persiani; Francesco Pardo; Fabrizio Perna; Sandro Giannini
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-01-03

3.  Validation of the Persian Version of the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS) Questionnaire.

Authors:  Sayyed-Hadi Sayyed-Hosseinian; Golnaz Ghayyem Hassankhani; Farshid Bagheri; Niloufar Alavi; Babak Shojaie; Alireza Mousavian
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2018-05

4.  Percutaneous cannulated screw fixation for pediatric epiphyseal ankle fractures.

Authors:  Özgür Çiçekli; Güzelali Özdemir; Mustafa Uysal; Vedat Biçici; İzzet Bingöl
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-11-07

5.  The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale; translation and validation of the Dutch language version for ankle fractures.

Authors:  A Siebe de Boer; Roderik J C Tjioe; Fleur Van der Sijde; Duncan E Meuffels; Pieter T den Hoed; Cornelis H Van der Vlies; Wim E Tuinebreijer; Michael H J Verhofstad; Esther M M Van Lieshout
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Minimally important change, measurement error, and responsiveness for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score.

Authors:  Maria C Cöster; Anna Nilsdotter; Lars Brudin; Ann Bremander
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-02-18       Impact factor: 3.717

7.  Medium-Long-Term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Distal Metatarsal Metaphyseal Osteotomy (DMMO) for Central Primary Metatarsalgia: Do Maestro Criteria Have a Predictive Value in the Preoperative Planning for This Percutaneous Technique?

Authors:  Carlo Biz; Marco Corradin; Wilfried Trepin Kuete Kanah; Miki Dalmau-Pastor; Alessandro Zornetta; Andrea Volpin; Pietro Ruggieri
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery.

Authors:  Dariusch Arbab; Katharina Kuhlmann; Christoph Schnurr; Bertil Bouillon; Christian Lüring; Dietmar König
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Evaluation of three patient reported outcome measures following operative fixation of closed ankle fractures.

Authors:  Andrew M Garratt; Markus G Naumann; Ulf Sigurdsen; Stein Erik Utvåg; Knut Stavem
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Intraoperative Effect of 2D vs 3D Fluoroscopy on Quality of Reduction and Patient-Related Outcome in Calcaneal Fracture Surgery.

Authors:  Jens A Halm; M Suzan H Beerekamp; Robert Jan de Muinck-Keijzer; Ludo F M Beenen; Mario Maas; J Carel Goslings; Tim Schepers
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 2.827

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.