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

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Volumn 94 B, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 215-221

  Dawson, J ^a   Boller, I ^a   Doll, H ^a   Lavis, G ^a,b   Sharp, R ^a,b   Cooke, P ^a,b   Jenkinson, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b NUFFIELD ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMERICAN ORTHOPAEDIC FOOT AND ANKLE SOCIETY SCORE; ANKLE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENERGY; EUROQOL QUESTIONNAIRE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FOOT SURGERY; HALLUX VALGUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MANCHESTER OXFORD FOOT QUESTIONNAIRE; MENTAL HEALTH; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 36; SOCIAL INTERACTION; STANDING; VALIDITY; WALKING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANKLE; ENGLAND; FEMALE; FOOT; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84856893507     PISSN: 0301620X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27634     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Thomas TG. Medical litigation and the foot. The Foot 1991;1:3-5.
2. Atrey A, Gupte CM, Corbett SA. Review of successful litigation against English health trusts in the treatment of adults with orthopaedic pathology: clinical governance lessons learned. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2010;92-A:1-6.
3. O'Doherty DP, Lowrie IG, Magnussen PA, Gregg PJ. The management of the painful first metatarsophalangeal joint in the older patient: arthrodesis or Keller's arthroplasty? J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1990;72-B:839-842. (Pubitemid 20286022)
4. Ferrari J, Higgins JP, Prior TD. Interventions for treating hallux valgus (abductovalgus) and bunions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;2:CD000964. http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000964.pub2/pdf (date last accessed 30 November 2011).
5. Parker J, Nester CJ, Long AF, Barrie J. The problem with measuring patient perceptions of outcome with existing outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:56-60. (Pubitemid 36077644)
6. Amadio PC. Outcomes measurements. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1993;75-A:1583-1584.
7. Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, et al. Quality of life measures in health care: I: applications and issues in assessment. BMJ 1992;305:1074-1077.
8. Wright JG, Rudicel S, Feinstein AR. Ask patients what they want: evaluation of individual complaints before total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1994;76- B:229-234.
9. Schneider W, Knahr K. Surgery for hallux valgus: the expectations of patients and surgeons. Int Orthop 2001;25:382-385. (Pubitemid 34016813)
10. Timmins N. Assessing patient care: NHS goes to the PROMS. BMJ 2008;336:1464-1465.
11. Pynsent P, Fairbank J, Carr A. Outcome measures in orthopaedics. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann, 1993:6-9.
12. Haworth RJ, Hopkins J, Ells P, Ackroyd E, Mowat AG. Expectations and outcome of total hip replacement. Rheumatol Rehabil 1981;2:65-70. (Pubitemid 11020509)
13. Wylde V, Blom AW. The failure of survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2011;93- B:569-570.
14. Tiberio D. Pathomechanics of structural foot deformities. Phys Ther 1988;68:1840-1849. (Pubitemid 19055793)
15. Dawson J, Coffey J, Doll H, 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;15:1211-1222.
16. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, et al. 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;15:918-931.
17. Garrow AP, Papageorgiou AC, Silman AJ, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. Pain 2000;85:107-113. (Pubitemid 30110750)
18. Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, et al. The MOXFQ patient-reported questionnaire: assessment of data quality, reliability and validity in relation to foot and ankle surgery. Foot (Edinb) 2011;21:92-102.
19. Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 2000;25:3192-3199. (Pubitemid 32042952)
20. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PMM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003;12:349-362. (Pubitemid 36612040)
21. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:171-178. (Pubitemid 17007065)
22. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 2000;38(Suppl):1184-1190.
23. Hays RD, Hadorn D. Responsiveness to change: an aspect of validity, not a separate dimension. Qual Life Res 1992;1:73-75.
24. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, et al. Clinical rating systems for anklehindfoot, midfoot, hallux and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 1994;15:349-353. (Pubitemid 24224646)
25. Ware-JE J, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-483.
26. Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Petersen S, Paice C. Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:46-50. (Pubitemid 29012351)
27. No authors listed. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208.
28. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53-72. (Pubitemid 26191458)
29. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991:278-299.
30. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27(Suppl):178-189.
31. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1997.
32. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000:322-345.
33. Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int 2004;25:521-525. (Pubitemid 39096098)
34. Pena F, Agel J, Coetzee JC. Comparison of the MFA to the AOFAS outcome tool in a population undergoing total ankle replacement. Foot Ankle Int 2007;28:788-793. (Pubitemid 47021026)
35. Guyton GP. Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int 2005;22:779-787.
36. SooHoo NF, Shuler M, Fleming LL, et al. Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS clinical rating system by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:50-55.
37. Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Carr A. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010;340:c186.