Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Volumn 95, Issue 16, 2013, Pages

  Hunt, Kenneth J ^a   Hurwit, Daniel ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEON; AMERICAN ORTHOPAEDIC FOOT AND ANKLE SOCEITY SCALE; ANKLE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DATA ANALYSIS; FOOT; FOOT FUNCTION INDEX; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SHORT FORM 36; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84896325144     PISSN: 00219355     EISSN: 15351386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01476     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. 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 Aug;25(8): 521-5.
2. 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 Mar;468(3): 815-26. Epub 2009 Aug 12.
3. Suk M, Hanson B, Norvell D, Helfet D. Musculoskeletal outcomes measures and instruments. New York: Thieme, 2009.
4. 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 Dec;46(16): 1102-9. Epub 2011 Nov 16.
5. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan;85(1): 1-3.
6. Smith MV, Klein SE, Clohisy JC, Baca GR, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Lower extremityspecific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Mar 7;94(5): 468-77.
7. Wright RW. Knee injury outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009 Jan;17(1): 31-9.
8. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4): 407-15.
9. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002 Mar;14(2): 109-14.
10. 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 Jul;15(7): 349-53.
11. Pinsker E, Daniels TR. AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems. Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Sep;32(9): 841-2.
12. Pynsent P, Fairbank J, Carr A. Outcome measures in orthopaedics and orthopaedic trauma. 2nd Edition ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
13. Guyton GP. Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int. 2001 Oct;22(10): 779-87.
14. Baumhauer JF, McIntosh S, Rechtine G. Age and sex differences between patient and physician-derived outcome measures in the foot and ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Feb 6;95(3): 209-14.
15. 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 Jan;33(1): 57-63.
16. Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007 Feb;37(2): 72-84.
17. Scott J, Huskisson EC. Graphic representation of pain. Pain. 1976 Jun;2(2): 175-84.
18. Reading AE. A comparison of pain rating scales. J Psychosom Res. 1980;24(3-4): 119-24.
19. de Nies F, Fidler MW. Visual analog scale for the assessment of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1997 Jun;12(4): 416-9.
20. Lee JS, Hobden E, Stiell IG, Wells GA. Clinically important change in the visual analog scale after adequate pain control. Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Oct;10(10): 1128-30.
21. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6): 473-83.
22. Swiontkowski MF, Engelberg R, Martin DP, Agel J. Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Sep;81(9): 1245-60.
23. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau D, Adogwa O, Cheng JS, Anderson WN, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ. Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Jan;16(1): 61-7. Epub 2011 Sep 30.
24. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C; Oxford and Birmingham Foot and Ankle Clinical Research Group. 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 Aug;15(8): 918-31. Epub 2007 Mar 26.
25. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(6): 561-70.
26. 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 Jul;27(7): 519-27.
27. Johanson NA, LiangMH, Daltroy L, Rudicel S, Richmond J. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 May;86-A(5): 902-9.
28. Domsic RT, Saltzman CL. Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int. 1998 Jul;19(7): 466-71.
29. Carcia CR, Martin RL, Drouin JM. Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2008 Apr-Jun;43(2): 179-83.
30. 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 Nov;26(11): 968-83.
31. Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Stratford PW. Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jun;58(6): 629-38.
32. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Clinical interpretation of computerized adaptive test outcome measures in patients with foot/ankle impairments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 Oct;39(10): 753-64.
33. Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE. Clinical interpretation of a lowerextremity functional scale-derived computerized adaptive test. Phys Ther. 2009 Sep;89(9): 957-68. Epub 2009 Jul 23.
34. Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, Saltzman CL. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res. 2011 Jun;29(6): 947-53. Epub 2011 Mar 15.
35. Hung M, Clegg DO, Greene T, Weir C, Saltzman CL. A lower extremity physical function computerized adaptive testing instrument for orthopaedic patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2012 Apr;33(4): 326-35.
36. Hsueh IP, Wang WC, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Lo SK, Lin JH, Hsieh CL. A simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement instrument. Phys Ther. 2006 Jul;86(7): 936-43.
37. Fries J, Rose M, Krishnan E. The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and Internet administration. J Rheumatol. 2011 Aug;38(8): 1759-64.
38. Fries JF, Krishnan E, Rose M, Lingala B, Bruce B. Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13(5): R147. Epub 2011 Sep 14.
39. Jette AM, Haley SM. Contemporary measurement techniques for rehabilitation outcomes assessment. J Rehabil Med. 2005 Nov;37(6): 339-45.