Literature DB >> 26842388

The foot function index is more sensitive to change than the Leeds Foot Impact Scale for evaluating rheumatoid arthritis patients after forefoot or hindfoot reconstruction.

Imraan Muradin1, Huub J L van der Heide2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study examines the responsiveness of the Foot Functional Index (FFI) and Leeds Foot Impact Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (LFIS-RA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving a forefoot or hindfoot reconstruction.
METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study including 30 rheumatoid arthritis patients with severe rheumatoid foot deformities in need for surgical correction. Responsiveness was measured using distribution-based methods (standardized effect size, standardized response mean and Guyatt responsiveness ratio) and anchor-based methods (receiver operating characteristics curves and correlation analyses) by making use of an anchor question. To examine the depth of the questionnaires we measured the floor and ceiling effects.
RESULTS: The study population consisted of three males and 27 females, with a mean age of 62 years. The mean follow-up time was 38 months. Twenty-two feet received a forefoot reconstruction and eight feet a triple arthrodesis. For the FFI the SES was -0.80, SRM was -0.85 and the GRR was -1.25. For the LFIS-RA the SES was 0.58, SRM was 0.58 and the GRR was 0.88. The AUC was 0.741 and 0.645 for FFI and LFIS, respectively. Contrary to the LFIS-RA, the FFI showed a significant correlation between change score and the anchor question. Both questionnaires did not show a significant floor or ceiling effect.
CONCLUSION: The FFI showed a large responsiveness and the LFIS- RA showed moderate responsiveness in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving forefoot or hindfoot surgery, without floor or ceiling effects in both questionnaires.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FFI; Forefoot arthrodesis; LFIS-RA; Responsiveness; Rheumatoid arthritis; Triple arthrodesis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26842388     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3113-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  24 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Current challenges in clinimetrics.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Caroline B Terwee; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis.

Authors:  N Jane Madeley; Kevin J Wing; Claire Topliss; Murray J Penner; Mark A Glazebrook; Alastair Se Younger
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.827

4.  The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability.

Authors:  E Budiman-Mak; K J Conrad; K E Roach
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

Authors:  Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

Authors:  R A Deyo; P Diehr; D L Patrick
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1991-08

7.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance.

Authors:  R A Deyo; R M Centor
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1986

8.  Development of a foot impact scale for rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Philip Helliwell; Naomi Reay; Gill Gilworth; Anthony Redmond; Anita Slade; Alan Tennant; James Woodburn
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2005-06-15

9.  The rheumatoid foot: a systematic literature review of patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  Steven Walmsley; Anita E Williams; Mike Ravey; Andrea Graham
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  The Weil osteotomy for correction of the severe rheumatoid forefoot.

Authors:  Klemens Trieb; Stefan G Hofstaetter; Joannis Panotopoulos; Axel Wanivenhaus
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 3.075

View more
  4 in total

1.  Effectiveness of foot orthoses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis related to disability and pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron; Laura Ramos-Petersen; Ana Belen Ortega-Avila; Jose Miguel Morales-Asencio; Silvia Garcia-Mayor
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the clinical utility of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Foot Disease Activity Index.

Authors:  Anika Hoque; Martijn Steultjens; Diane M Dickson; Gordon J Hendry
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 3.580

3.  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

4.  Foot Assessment Clinical Scales in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Patients: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Chiara Rambelli; Davide Mazzoli; Martina Galletti; Giacomo Basini; Paolo Zerbinati; Paolo Prati; Francesca Mascioli; Stefano Masiero; Andrea Merlo
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 3.473

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.