Literature DB >> 26855627

Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score for Hallux Rigidus.

MaCalus V Hogan1, Sriniwasan B Mani2, Jeremy Y Chan3, Huong Do4, Jonathan T Deland3, Scott J Ellis3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a clear call for improved patient-centered outcomes. The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is a region-specific patient-reported measure that has been validated for a number of foot and ankle diagnoses, but not hallux rigidus. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aim of this study was to validate the FAOS in patients with hallux rigidus.
METHODS: From 2007 to 2013, 211 patients with hallux rigidus (HR) were included in the study. For the construct validity portion of the study, 125 patients completed a Short-Form 12 (SF-12) and FAOS survey. Forty additional HR patients were prospectively given questionnaires to assess the relevance of each FAOS question as it pertained to their HR. Reliability was assessed in 36 HR patients via administration of a second FAOS an average 1 month following the first. In 55 patients, preoperative and postoperative FAOS scores were compared to determine responsiveness.
RESULTS: All FAOS subscales demonstrated moderate correlation coefficients with the physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, and physical health component scores of the SF-12, with all subscales demonstrating poor correlation with the SF-12 mental health-related domains. Content validity was high for all FAOS scores, with the exception of the daily activities subscale. All subscales achieved acceptable test-retest reliability with correlation coefficients of ≥0.72. Furthermore, all subscales were rated as responsive to change in postoperative patients (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the acceptable construct and content validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the FAOS for hallux rigidus. Due to its broad applicability and proven validation across multiple foot and ankle pathologies, the FAOS represents a patient-centered outcome measure that can be reliably used for the assessment of patients with hallux rigidus.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FAOS; hallux rigidus; patient-reported outcomes; validation

Year:  2015        PMID: 26855627      PMCID: PMC4733695          DOI: 10.1007/s11420-015-9466-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HSS J        ISSN: 1556-3316


  24 in total

Review 1.  Surgical management of hallux rigidus.

Authors:  Jonathan Thorndike Deland; Benjamin Roller Williams
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.020

2.  Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery.

Authors:  J Dawson; I Boller; H Doll; G Lavis; R Sharp; P Cooke; C Jenkinson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2012-02

3.  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

Review 4.  The 36-item short form.

Authors:  Alpesh A Patel; Derek Donegan; Todd Albert
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.020

5.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Multisegmental foot and ankle motion analysis after hallux valgus surgery.

Authors:  Karl Canseco; Jason Long; Thomas Smedberg; Sergey Tarima; Richard M Marks; Gerald F Harris
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.827

7.  Epidemiological survey of foot problems in the continental United States: 1978-1979.

Authors:  N Gould; W Schneider; T Ashikaga
Journal:  Foot Ankle       Date:  1980-07

8.  A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system?

Authors:  Gavin Button; Stephen Pinney
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.827

9.  Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score in adult acquired flatfoot deformity.

Authors:  Sriniwasan B Mani; Haydée C Brown; Pallavi Nair; Lan Chen; Huong T Do; Stephen Lyman; Jonathan T Deland; Scott J Ellis
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 2.827

10.  Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus.

Authors:  Lan Chen; Stephen Lyman; Huong Do; Jon Karlsson; Stephanie P Adam; Elizabeth Young; Jonathan T Deland; Scott J Ellis
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.827

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Measurement properties of the most commonly used Foot- and Ankle-Specific Questionnaires: the FFI, FAOS and FAAM. A systematic review.

Authors:  I N Sierevelt; R Zwiers; W Schats; D Haverkamp; C B Terwee; P A Nolte; G M M J Kerkhoffs
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Patient-Reported Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics.

Authors:  Eric Lakey; Kenneth J Hunt
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2019-07-19

3.  The effect of osteotomy technique (flat-cut vs wedge-cut Weil) on pain relief and complication incidence following surgical treatment for metatarsalgia in a private metropolitan clinic: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Manaal Fatima; Nalan Ektas; Corey Scholes; Michael Symes; Andrew Wines
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 2.728

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.