Journal of Korean Foot and Ankle Society (대한족부족관절학회지)

Korean Foot & Ankle Society (대한족부족관절학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of the Foot and Ankle

족부족관절 분야의 환자 자가 보고 결과 평가법

  • Kim, Jiyoun (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kosin University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Bom Soo (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inha University College of Medicine)
  • 김지연 (고신대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 김범수 (인하대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실)
  • Received : 2022.02.09
  • Accepted : 2022.02.19
  • Published : 2022.03.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in assessing the patient's overall health, lesion-specific outcomes, and condition-specific outcomes. PROMs are also known as "scoring systems" and are usually in questionnaires. There are almost a hundred different PROMs available in foot and ankle surgery. Each PROM has its merits, demerits, and validity. Selecting an appropriate PROM is important for adequately evaluating a patient's health status. This article summarizes the most frequently used PROMs in the literature on foot and ankle surgery and presents the authors' recommendations.

Keywords

References

  1. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Rippstein PF. Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:815-26. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1036-y.
  2. Hunt KJ, Lakey E. Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2018;49:277-89. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2017.11.014.
  3. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Instruments for collection of orthopaedic quality data. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2016.
  4. Scott J, Huskisson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain. 1976;2:175-84. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(76)90113-5.
  5. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-83. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.
  6. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15:349-53. doi: 10.1177/107110079401500701.
  7. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:561-70. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90220-4.
  8. EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
  9. Lakey E, Hunt KJ. Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle orthopedics. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2019;4:2473011419852930. doi: 10.1177/2473011419852930.
  10. Nilsson-Helander K, Thomee R, Silbernagel KG, Thomee P, Faxen E, Eriksson BI, et al. The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS): development and validation. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:421-6. doi: 10.1177/0363546506294856. Erratum in: Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:NP8.
  11. Domsic RT, Saltzman CL. Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19:466-71. doi: 10.1177/107110079801900708.
  12. Kearney RS, Achten J, Lamb SE, Plant C, Costa ML. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess Achilles tendon rupture management: what's being used and should we be using it? Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:1102-9. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090497.
  13. Jia Y, Huang H, Gagnier JJ. A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:1969-2010. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1542-4.
  14. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.
  15. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
  16. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1290-9. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000065484.95996.AF.
  17. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147-57. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.
  18. Hunt KJ, Hurwit D. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e118(1-9). https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01476
  19. Pinsker E, Daniels TR. AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32:841-2. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2011.0841.
  20. Malviya A, Makwana N, Laing P. Correlation of the AOFAS scores with a generic health QUALY score in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28:494-8. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2007.0494.
  21. Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain. 2011;152:2399-404. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.005.
  22. Kersten P, White PJ, Tennant A. Is the pain visual analogue scale linear and responsive to change? An exploration using Rasch analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099485.
  23. Busija L, Osborne RH, Nilsdotter A, Buchbinder R, Roos EM. Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in SF-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:55. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-55.
  24. Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T. Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:1628-34. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.O.00030.
  25. Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, Lawrence K, Petersen S, Paice C, et al. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health Med. 1997;19:179-86. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024606.
  26. Gosling CM, Gabbe BJ, Williamson OD, Sutherland AM, Cameron PA. Validity of outcome measures used to assess one and six month outcomes in orthopaedic trauma patients. Injury. 2011;42:1443-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.05.022.
  27. Hijji FY, Schneider AD, Pyper M, Laughlin RT. The popularity of outcome measures used in the foot and ankle literature. Foot Ankle Spec. 2020;13:58-68. doi: 10.1177/1938640019826680.
  28. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53-72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
  29. Mani SB, Brown HC, Nair P, Chen L, Do HT, Lyman S, et al. Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score in adult acquired flatfoot deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34:1140-6. doi: 10.1177/1071100713483117.
  30. Golightly YM, Devellis RF, Nelson AE, Hannan MT, Lohmander LS, Renner JB, et al. Psychometric properties of the foot and ankle outcome score in a community-based study of adults with and without osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66:395-403. doi: 10.1002/acr.22162.
  31. Lee KM, Chung CY, Kwon SS, Sung KH, Lee SY, Won SH, et al. Transcultural adaptation and testing psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Clin Rheumatol. 2013;32:1443-50. doi: 10.1007/s10067-013-2288-1.
  32. Shazadeh Safavi P, Janney C, Jupiter D, Kunzler D, Bui R, Panchbhavi VK. A systematic review of the outcome evaluation tools for the foot and ankle. Foot Ankle Spec. 2019;12:461-70. doi: 10.1177/1938640018803747.
  33. In TS, Jung JH, Kim K, Jung KS, Cho HY. The reliability and validity of the Korean version of the foot function index for patients with foot complaints. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017;29:53-56. doi: 10.1589/jpts.29.53.
  34. Huh JW, Eun IS, Ko YC, Park MJ, Hwang KM, Park SH, et al. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Foot Function Index. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;55:759-61. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2016.03.011.
  35. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad K, Stuck R, Matters M. Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:519-27. doi: 10.1177/107110070602700707.
  36. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Mazza J, Stuck RM. A review of the foot function index and the foot function index - revised. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013;6:5. doi: 10.1186/1757-1146-6-5.
  37. Hale SA, Hertel J. Reliability and sensitivity of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2005;40:35-40.
  38. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26:968-83. doi: 10.1177/107110070502601113.
  39. Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, Lavis G, Cooke P, Herron M, et al. A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1211-22. doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-0061-5.
  40. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15:918-31. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.02.003. Erratum in: Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19:920.
  41. Venkatesan M, Aziz S, Mahadevan D, Korim T, Dias J, Bhatia M. Evaluation of validity, reliability, and feasibility of 3 patient-reported foot and ankle outcome measures. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;59:507-12. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2019.09.033.
  42. Pinsker E, Inrig T, Daniels TR, Warmington K, Beaton DE. Reliability and validity of 6 measures of pain, function, and disability for ankle arthroplasty and arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36:617-25. doi: 10.1177/1071100714566624.
  43. Madeley NJ, Wing KJ, Topliss C, Penner MJ, Glazebrook MA, Younger AS. Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33:57-63. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2012.0057.
  44. Wing KJ, Chapinal N, Coe MP, Daniels TR, Glazebrook M, Dryden P, et al. Measuring the operative treatment effect in end-stage ankle arthritis: are we asking the right questions? A COFAS multicenter study. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38:1064-9. doi: 10.1177/1071100717714953.
  45. Croft S, Wing KJ, Daniels TR, Glazebrook M, Dryden P, Younger A, et al. Association of Ankle Arthritis Score with need for revision surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38:939-43. doi: 10.1177/1071100717712891.
  46. Park YH, Cho HW, Choi JW, Kim HJ. Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Korean translation of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22:876. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04765-w.
  47. McKeown R, Rabiu AR, Ellard DR, Kearney RS. Primary outcome measures used in interventional trials for ankle fractures: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20:388. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2770-2.
  48. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). Patient reported outcome measures. Quality Measures [Internet]. Rosemont (IL): AAOS [cited 2021 Dec 30]. Available from: https:// www.aaos.org/quality/research-resources/patient-reported-outcomemeasures.
  49. Lee DY, Kim YM, Lee JH, Kim J, Kim JB, Kim BS, et al. Validation of electronic foot function index in patients with foot and ankle disease: a randomized, prospective multicenter study. J Korean Foot Ankle Soc. 2019;23:24-30. doi: 10.14193/jkfas.2019.23.1.24.
  50. Park JY, Kim BS, Lee HJ, Kim YM, Kim HN, Kang HJ, et al. Comparison between an electronic version of the foot and ankle outcome score and the standard paper version: a randomized multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e17440. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017440.