Yuanxi Jia1, Hsiaomin Huang2, Joel J Gagnier3,4. 1. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. jgagnier@med.umich.edu. 4. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Lobby A, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. jgagnier@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify currently available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in patients with foot or ankle diseases; and to critically appraise, compare and synthesize the psychometric evidence for the identified PROMs. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in Medline and EMBASE from their inception to January 25th, 2016. Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. The final rating of the methodological quality of each study for each property was the lowest rating among the items within that property. The psychometric evidence of the properties investigated in the included articles was assessed using the quality criteria established by Terwee et al. The methodological quality ratings and psychometric evidence assessments were synthesized using the method first proposed by Schellingerhout et al. RESULTS: In total, 3077 articles were identified by the literature search, from which 115 studies investigating 50 PRO instruments were included in the review process. The Foot Function Index (FFI) was the most explored instrument, while the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) demonstrated the best properties. CONCLUSION: Most PROMs on foot and ankle diseases have limited evidence for their psychometric properties. The MOXFQ, with the highest overall ratings, could be a useful PROM for evaluating patients with foot or ankle diseases, based on current available evidence. More research is needed to improve the quality of the standards used to assess PROMs and the studies making these assessments.
PURPOSE: To identify currently available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in patients with foot or ankle diseases; and to critically appraise, compare and synthesize the psychometric evidence for the identified PROMs. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in Medline and EMBASE from their inception to January 25th, 2016. Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. The final rating of the methodological quality of each study for each property was the lowest rating among the items within that property. The psychometric evidence of the properties investigated in the included articles was assessed using the quality criteria established by Terwee et al. The methodological quality ratings and psychometric evidence assessments were synthesized using the method first proposed by Schellingerhout et al. RESULTS: In total, 3077 articles were identified by the literature search, from which 115 studies investigating 50 PRO instruments were included in the review process. The Foot Function Index (FFI) was the most explored instrument, while the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) demonstrated the best properties. CONCLUSION: Most PROMs on foot and ankle diseases have limited evidence for their psychometric properties. The MOXFQ, with the highest overall ratings, could be a useful PROM for evaluating patients with foot or ankle diseases, based on current available evidence. More research is needed to improve the quality of the standards used to assess PROMs and the studies making these assessments.
Authors: Howard J Zlotoff; Jeffrey C Christensen; Robert W Mendicino; John M Schuberth; Nathan H Schwartz; James L Thomas; Lowell Scott Weil Journal: J Foot Ankle Surg Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.286
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
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: S Greenfield; S H Kaplan; R A Silliman; L Sullivan; W Manning; R D'Agostino; D E Singer; D M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 19.112
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
Authors: Annemarie A Uijen; Claire W Heinst; Francois G Schellevis; Wil J H M van den Bosch; Floris A van de Laar; Caroline B Terwee; Henk J Schers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael Quan Nguyen; Ingvild Dalen; Marjolein Memelink Iversen; Knut Harboe; Aksel Paulsen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brice Picot; Alexandre Hardy; Romain Terrier; Bruno Tassignon; Ronny Lopes; François Fourchet Journal: Front Sports Act Living Date: 2022-05-26
Authors: Ana Belen Ortega-Avila; Pablo Cervera-Garvi; Laura Ramos-Petersen; Esther Chicharro-Luna; Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-01-27 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Richard A Wilkins; Lara S Chapman; Jenny C Emmel; Thuvia Flannery; Graham J Chapman; Rebecca E A Walwyn; Anthony C Redmond; Heidi J Siddle Journal: Haemophilia Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 4.263
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
Authors: Olivier C Dams; Inge H F Reininga; Johannes Zwerver; Ronald L Diercks; Inge van den Akker-Scheek Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2020-03-07 Impact factor: 4.342