I N Sierevelt1,2, R Zwiers3, W Schats4, D Haverkamp5, C B Terwee6, P A Nolte7, G M M J Kerkhoffs3. 1. Slotervaart Center of Orthopedic Research and Education (SCORE), Orthopedic Department, MC Slotervaart, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. I.Sierevelt@gmail.com. 2. Spaarne Gasthuis Academy, Orthopedic Department, Spaarne Gasthuis Hospital, Spaarnepoort 1, 2134 TM, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands. I.Sierevelt@gmail.com. 3. Orthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Scientific Information Service, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Slotervaart Center of Orthopedic Research and Education (SCORE), Orthopedic Department, MC Slotervaart, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Spaarne Gasthuis Academy, Orthopedic Department, Spaarne Gasthuis Hospital, Spaarnepoort 1, 2134 TM, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the foot and ankle literature, a wide range of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is used, however, consensus as to which PROMs are preferred is lacking. Selection of a PROM is among other reasons, often based on measurement properties without considering the methodological quality of the studies that evaluate these measurement properties. The aim of current study was first to identify the most frequently used foot and ankle-specific PROMs in recent orthopaedic foot and ankle literature, and second to conduct a systematic review to synthesize and critically appraise the measurement properties of these PROMS. METHODS: Six PubMed indexed journals focussing on foot and ankle research were screened to identify most commonly used foot and ankle-specific PROMs over a 2 year period (2015-2016). Subsequently, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Scopus to identify relevant studies on their measurement properties. Methodological quality assessment was performed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, criteria for good measurement properties were applied, and a level of evidence was determined for the measurement properties of each domain of the questionnaires. RESULTS: The three most frequently reported PROMs were the Foot Function Index (FFI), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Foot and Ankle Activity Measure (FAAM). Among 2046 unique citations, 50 studies were included evaluating these PROMs. Evidence to support the measurement properties of the FFI was mainly lacking due to poor methodological quality. More evidence was available for the measurement properties of the FAOS and the FAAM, but overall evidence supporting all measurement properties is not yet sufficient. CONCLUSION: The best available evidence retrieved in this review showed that the FAOS and the FAAM are promising outcome measures for evaluation of patients with foot and ankle conditions, but their shortcomings should be taken into account when interpreting results in clinical setting or trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
PURPOSE: In the foot and ankle literature, a wide range of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is used, however, consensus as to which PROMs are preferred is lacking. Selection of a PROM is among other reasons, often based on measurement properties without considering the methodological quality of the studies that evaluate these measurement properties. The aim of current study was first to identify the most frequently used foot and ankle-specific PROMs in recent orthopaedic foot and ankle literature, and second to conduct a systematic review to synthesize and critically appraise the measurement properties of these PROMS. METHODS: Six PubMed indexed journals focussing on foot and ankle research were screened to identify most commonly used foot and ankle-specific PROMs over a 2 year period (2015-2016). Subsequently, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Scopus to identify relevant studies on their measurement properties. Methodological quality assessment was performed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, criteria for good measurement properties were applied, and a level of evidence was determined for the measurement properties of each domain of the questionnaires. RESULTS: The three most frequently reported PROMs were the Foot Function Index (FFI), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Foot and Ankle Activity Measure (FAAM). Among 2046 unique citations, 50 studies were included evaluating these PROMs. Evidence to support the measurement properties of the FFI was mainly lacking due to poor methodological quality. More evidence was available for the measurement properties of the FAOS and the FAAM, but overall evidence supporting all measurement properties is not yet sufficient. CONCLUSION: The best available evidence retrieved in this review showed that the FAOS and the FAAM are promising outcome measures for evaluation of patients with foot and ankle conditions, but their shortcomings should be taken into account when interpreting results in clinical setting or trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
Entities:
Keywords:
COSMIN; Foot Function Index (FAAM); Foot and Ankle Activity Measure (FAAM); Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS); Measurement properties; PROM; Systematic review
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: C J A van Bergen; I N Sierevelt; P Hoogervorst; H Waizy; C N van Dijk; C Becher Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2014-04-19 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Pablo F Recinos; Cheryl J Dunphy; Nicolas Thompson; Jesse Schuschu; John L Urchek; Irene L Katzan Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Man Hung; Judith F Baumhauer; James W Brodsky; Christine Cheng; Scott J Ellis; Jeremy D Franklin; Shirley D Hon; Susan N Ishikawa; L Daniel Latt; Phinit Phisitkul; Charles L Saltzman; Nelson F SooHoo; Kenneth J Hunt Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2014-06 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: 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: Emmanuel Navarro-Flores; Marta Elena Losa-Iglesias; Ricardo Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo; María Reina-Bueno; Daniel López-López; Carlos Romero-Morales; Patricia Palomo-López; César Calvo-Lobo Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Marcel Niemann; Frank Graef; Sufian S Ahmad; Karl F Braun; Ulrich Stöckle; Andrej Trampuz; Sebastian Meller Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-11
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: Daniel Körner; Christoph E Gonser; Stefan Döbele; Christian Konrads; Fabian Springer; Gabriel Keller Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Daniel Körner; Christoph E Gonser; Stefan Döbele; Christian Konrads; Fabian Springer; Gabriel Keller Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Emrah Aydogan; Stefan Langer; Christoph Josten; Johannes Karl Maria Fakler; Ralf Henkelmann Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-12-01 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
Authors: Boris Alexander Zelle; Christopher Fulton Adcock; Ben Seth Francisco; Nicolas Alexander Morton-Gonzaba; Roberto José Fajardo Journal: OTA Int Date: 2018-05-16