Alberto J Pérez-Panero1, María Ruiz-Muñoz2, Raúl Fernández-Torres1, Cynthia Formosa3, Alfred Gatt3, Manuel Gónzalez-Sánchez4. 1. Department of Nursing and Podiatry, University of Málaga, Arquitecto Francisco Peñalosa, s/n. Ampliación campus de Teatinos, 29071, Málaga, Spain. 2. Department of Nursing and Podiatry, University of Málaga, Arquitecto Francisco Peñalosa, s/n. Ampliación campus de Teatinos, 29071, Málaga, Spain. marumu@uma.es. 3. Podiatry Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Block A, Level 1, Mater Dei Hospital, University of Malta, Msida, MSD 2090, Malta. 4. Department of Physiotherapy, University of Málaga, Arquitecto Francisco Peñalosa, s/n. Ampliación campus de Teatinos, 29071, Málaga, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diabetic foot disease is one of the most serious and expensive complications of diabetes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) analyse patients' perception of their disability, functionality and health. The goal of this work was to conduct a systematic review regarding the specific PROMs related to the evaluation of diabetic foot disease and to extract and analyse the values of their measurement properties. METHODS: Electronic databases included were PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane, SciELO and EMBASE. The search terms used were foot, diabet*, diabetic foot, questionnaire, patient-reported outcome, self-care, valid*, reliabil*. Studies whose did not satisfy the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) Diagnostic Study Checklist were excluded. The measurement properties extracted were: Internal Consistency, Test-retest, Inter-rater and Intra-rater, Standard Error of Measurement, Minimum Detectable Measurement Difference, Content Validity, Construct Validity, Criterion Validity and Responsiveness. RESULTS: The PROMs selected for this review were 12 questionnaires. The Diabetic foot self-care questionnaire (DFSQ-UMA) and the Questionnaire for Diabetes Related Foot Disease (Q-DFD) were the PROMs that showed the highest number of completed measurement properties. CONCLUSION: According to the results, it is relevant to create specific questionnaires for the evaluation of diabetic foot disease. It seems appropriate to use both DFSQ-UMA and Q-DFD when assessing patients with diabetic foot disease.
PURPOSE:Diabetic foot disease is one of the most serious and expensive complications of diabetes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) analyse patients' perception of their disability, functionality and health. The goal of this work was to conduct a systematic review regarding the specific PROMs related to the evaluation of diabetic foot disease and to extract and analyse the values of their measurement properties. METHODS: Electronic databases included were PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane, SciELO and EMBASE. The search terms used were foot, diabet*, diabetic foot, questionnaire, patient-reported outcome, self-care, valid*, reliabil*. Studies whose did not satisfy the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) Diagnostic Study Checklist were excluded. The measurement properties extracted were: Internal Consistency, Test-retest, Inter-rater and Intra-rater, Standard Error of Measurement, Minimum Detectable Measurement Difference, Content Validity, Construct Validity, Criterion Validity and Responsiveness. RESULTS: The PROMs selected for this review were 12 questionnaires. The Diabetic foot self-care questionnaire (DFSQ-UMA) and the Questionnaire for Diabetes Related Foot Disease (Q-DFD) were the PROMs that showed the highest number of completed measurement properties. CONCLUSION: According to the results, it is relevant to create specific questionnaires for the evaluation of diabetic foot disease. It seems appropriate to use both DFSQ-UMA and Q-DFD when assessing patients with diabetic foot disease.
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M Lepäntalo; J Apelqvist; C Setacci; J-B Ricco; G de Donato; F Becker; H Robert-Ebadi; P Cao; H H Eckstein; P De Rango; N Diehm; J Schmidli; M Teraa; F L Moll; F Dick; A H Davies Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 7.069
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: Manuel González-Sánchez; Esther Velasco-Ramos; Maria Ruiz Muñoz; Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Pietro Salvo; Nicola Calisi; Bernardo Melai; Valentina Dini; Clara Paoletti; Tommaso Lomonaco; Andrea Pucci; Fabio Di Francesco; Alberto Piaggesi; Marco Romanelli Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2017-01-31
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Petra J M Elders; Marlous Langendoen-Gort; Ellen B M Elsman; Cecilia A C Prinsen; Amber A van der Heijden; Maartje de Wit; Joline W J Beulens; Lidwine B Mokkink; Femke Rutters Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 5.430