To identify self-reported outcome measures specific to the foot and ankle in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and to investigate the methodological quality and psychometric properties of these measures.
Method:
A systematic review focusing on patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Setting:
The search was conducted in the PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PEDro and Google Scholar databases, based on the following inclusion criteria: population (with rheumatoid arthritis) > 18 years; psychometric or clinimetric validation studies of patient-reported outcomes specific to the foot and ankle, in different languages, with no time limit. Two of the present authors independently assessed the quality of the studies located and extracted the relevant data. Terwee’s criteria and the COSMIN checklist were employed to ensure adequate methodological quality.
Results:
Of the initial 431 studies considered, 14 met the inclusion criteria, representing 7,793 patients (56.8 years). These instruments were grouped into three dimensions (pain, perceived health status and quality of life and disability). The time to complete any of the PROMs varies around 15 minutes. PROMs criterias with the worst scores by COSMIN, 92.85% and 85.71% were criterion validity, measurement error, internal consistency and responsiveness. 28.57% of PROMs were compared with the measurement properties.
Conclusion:
the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score achieved the highest number of positive criteria (according to Terwee and COSMIN), and is currently the most appropriate for patients with Rheumatoid arthritis.
OtterSJLucasKSpringettK, et al. Foot pain in rheumatoid arthritis prevalence, risk factors and management: an epidemiological study. Clin Rheumatol2010; 29(3): 255–271.
2.
Oude VoshaarMten KloosterPMTaalE, et al. Measurement properties of physical function scales validated for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of the literature. Health Qual Life Outcomes2011; 9(1): 99.
3.
RiskowskiJLHagedornTJHannanMT.Measures of foot function, foot health, and foot pain: American Academy of Orthopedic surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment: Foot and Ankle Module (AAOS-FAM), Bristol Foot Score (BFS), Revised Foot Function Index (FFI-R), Foot Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res2011; 63: S229–S239.
4.
JiaYHuangHGagnierJJ.A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases. Qual Life Res2017; 26(8): 1969–2010.
5.
Budiman-MakEConradKJRoachKE.The foot function index : a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol1991; 44(6): 561–570.
6.
WalmsleySWilliamsAERaveyM, et al. The rheumatoid foot: a systematic literature review of patient-reported outcome measures. J Foot Ankle Res2010; 3: 12.
7.
MartinRLIrrgangJJ.A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther2007; 37(2): 72–84.
8.
TerweeCBJansmaEPRiphagenII, et al. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res2009; 18(8): 1115–1123.
9.
BennettPPattersonCWearingS, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc1998; 88(9): 419–428.
10.
PrinsenCACMokkinkLBBouterLM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res2018; 27(5): 1147–1157.
11.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBPatrickDL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res2010; 19(4): 539–549.
12.
TerweeCBMokkinkLBKnolDL, et al. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res2012; 21: 651–657.
13.
TerweeCBBotSDMdeBoerMR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol2007; 60(1): 34–42.
14.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol2009; 339: b2700.
15.
YiLCStaboliIMKamonsekiDH, et al. Tradução e adaptação cultural do Foot Function Index para a língua portuguesa: FFI-Brasil. Rev Bras Reumatol2015; 55(5): 398–405.
16.
HuhJWEunISKoYC, et al. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the foot function index. J Foot Ankle Surg2016; 55(4): 759–761.
17.
MartinelliNScottoGMSartorelliE, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Foot Function Index in patients with foot and ankle diseases. Qual Life Res2014; 23(1): 277–284.
18.
WuSHLiangHWHouWH.Reliability and validity of the Taiwan Chinese version of the foot function index. J Formos Med Assoc2008; 107(2): 111–118.
19.
Pourtier-PiotteCPereiraBSoubrierM, et al. French validation of the Foot Function Index (FFI). Ann Phys Rehabil Med2015; 58(5): 276–282.
20.
Paez-MoguerJBudiman-MakECuesta-VargasAI.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index to Spanish. Foot Ankle Surg2014; 20(1): 34–39.
21.
NaalFDImpellizzeriFMHuberM, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the foot function index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot Ankle Int2008; 29(12): 1222–1231.
22.
Budiman-MakEConradKStuckR, et al. Theoretical model and rasch analysis to develop a revised foot function index. Foot Ankle Int2006; 27: 519–527.
AngersMSvotelisABalgF, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale for use in French-speaking populations. Can J Surg2016; 59(2): 123–127.
25.
Cuesta-VargasABennettPJimenez-CebrianAM, et al. The psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire. Qual Life Res2013; 22(7): 1739–1743.
26.
FerreiraAFBLaurindoIMMRodriguesPT, et al. Brazilian version of the foot health status questionnaire (FHSQ-BR): cross-cultural adaptation and evaluation of measurement properties. Clinics2008; 63(5): 595–600.
27.
PedersenCKDanneskiold-SamsoeBGarrowAP, et al. Development of a Danish language version of the Manchester foot pain and disability index: reproducibility and construct validity testing. Pain Res Treat2013; 2013: 284903.
28.
Gijon-NogueronGNdosiMLuque-SuarezA, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Manchester foot pain and disability index into Spanish. Qual Life Res2014; 23(2): 571–579.
29.
KaoullaPFrescosNMenzHB.Development and validation of a Greek language version of the Manchester foot pain and disability index. Health Qual Life Outcomes2008; 6: 39–39.
30.
ErhBXYHeHGCarterKF, et al. Validation of the Chinese Manchester foot pain and disability index (C-MFPDI) among patients with inflammatory arthritis. J Foot Ankle Res2019; 12: 6.
31.
RowanK.The development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of chronic foot pain: the ROwan Foot Pain Assessment Questionnaire (ROFPAQ). Foot Ankle Int2001; 22(10): 795–809.
32.
MacranSKindPCollingwoodJ, et al. Evaluating podiatry services: testing a treatment specific measure of health status. Qual Life Res2003; 12(2): 177–188.
33.
Navarro-FloresELosa-IglesiasMEBecerro-De-Bengoa-VallejoR, et al. Translation and test–retest of the Spanish podiatry health questionnaire (PHQ-S). Int J Environ Res Public Health2018; 15: 2205.
34.
KaratepeAGGunaydinRTurkmenG, et al. The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the rheumatoid and arthritis outcome score (RAOS) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol2009; 28(1): 47–51.
35.
DuvalAMaillefertJFGossecL, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the rheumatoid and arthritis outcome score (RAOS). Clin Exp Rheumatol2010; 28(6): 806–812.
36.
NegahbanHMasoudpurFRajaeiE, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Persian version of the rheumatoid and arthritis outcome score (RAOS) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol2015; 34(1): 35–42.
37.
JohansonNALiangMHDaltroyL, et al. American academy of orthopaedic surgeons lower limb outcomes assessment instruments. J Bone Joint Surg Am2004; 86(5): 902–909.
38.
González-SánchezMVelasco-RamosERuiz-MuñozM, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons-Foot and Ankle Module (AAOS-FAMsp). J Orthop Surg Res2016; 11(1): 1–7.
39.
MartinRLIrrgangJJBurdettRG, et al. Evidence of validity for the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int2005; 26(11): 968–983.
40.
BorlozSCrevoisierXDeriazO, et al. Evidence for validity and reliability of a French version of the FAAM. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2011; 12(1): 40.
41.
UematsuDSuzukiHSasakiS, et al. Evidence of validity for the Japanese version of the foot and ankle ability measure. J Athl Train2015; 50(1): 65–70.
42.
MazaheriMSalavatiMNegahbanH, et al. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthr Cartil2010; 18(6): 755–759.
43.
NauckTLohrerH.Translation, cross-cultural adaption and validation of the German version of the foot and ankle ability measure for patients with chronic ankle instability. Br J Sports Med2011; 45(10): 785–790.
44.
SartorioFVercelliSBraviniE, et al. Foot and ankle ability measure: cross-cultural translation and validation of the Italian version of the ADL module (FAAM-I/ADL)]. Med Lav2014; 105(5): 357–365.
45.
CelikDMalkocMMartinR.Evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness of Turkish foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Rheumatol Int2016; 36(10): 1469–1476.
46.
MoreiraTSMagalhaesLdeCSilvaRD, et al. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validity of the Brazilian version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil2016; 38(25): 2479–2490.
47.
Cervera-GarviPOrtega-AvilaABMorales-AsencioJM, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Spanish version of the foot and ankle ability measures (FAAM-Sp). J Foot Ankle Res2017; 10: 39–10.
48.
Gonzalez-SanchezMLiGZRuiz MunozM, et al. Foot and ankle ability measure to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders: a Chinese cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Disabil Rehabil2017; 39(21): 2182–2189.
49.
Arunakul MdMArunakulPSuesiritumrong MdC, et al. Validity and reliability of Thai version of the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) subjective form. J Med Assoc Thai2015; 98(986): 561–567.
50.
WeelHZwiersRAzimD, et al. Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the foot and ankle ability measure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2016; 24(4): 1348–1354.
51.
BarnettSCampbellRHarveyI.The Bristol foot score: developing a patient-based foot-health measure. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc2005; 95(3): 264–272.
52.
Navarro-FloresELosa-IglesiasMEBecerro-de-Bengoa-VallejoR, et al. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish Bristol foot score (BFS-S). Aging Dis2018; 9.
53.
HelliwellPReayNGilworthG, et al. Development of a Foot Impact Scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum2005; 53(3): 418–422.
54.
WoodburnJVliet VlielandTPvan der LeedenM, et al. Rasch analysis of Dutch-translated version of the Foot Impact Scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology2011; 50(7): 1315–1319.
55.
WoodburnJTurnerDERosenbaumD, et al. Adaptation and crosscultural validation of the Foot Impact Scale for rheumatoid arthritis using rasch analysis. Arthritis Care Res2012; 64(7): 986–992.
56.
WalmsleySRaveyMGrahamA, et al. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for the foot affected by rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Epidemiol2012; 65(4): 413–422.
57.
GolightlyYMDevellisRFNelsonAE, et al. Psychometric properties of the foot and ankle outcome score in a community-based study of adults with and without osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res2014; 66(3): 395–403.
58.
VosoughiARRoustaeiNMahdaviazadH.American orthopaedic foot and ankle society ankle-hindfoot scale: a cross-cultural adaptation and validation study from Iran. Foot Ankle Surg2018; 24: 219–223.
59.
LeeKMChungCYKwonSS, et al. Transcultural adaptation and testing psychometric properties of the Korean version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS). Clin Rheumatol2013; 32(10): 1443–1450.
60.
Van Den Akker-ScheekISeldentuisAReiningaIHF, et al. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord2013; 14(1):183.
61.
vanBergenCJSiereveltINHoogervorstP, et al. Translation and validation of the German version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2014; 134(7): 897–901.
62.
AngthongC.Validity and reliability of Thai version of the foot and ankle outcome score in patients with arthritis of the foot and ankle. Foot Ankle Surg2016; 22(4): 224–228.
63.
KaratepeAGGunaydinRKayaT, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatol Int2009; 30(2): 169–173.
64.
LingSKKChanVHoK, et al. Reliability and validity analysis of the open-source Chinese Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Foot2018; 35: 48–51.
65.
ArbabDKuhlmannKSchnurrC, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the German Self-Reported Foot And Ankle Score (SEFAS) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2017; 18(1): 1–6.
66.
CösterMCBremanderARosengrenBE, et al. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Self-Reported Foot And Ankle Score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders. Acta Orthop2014; 85(2): 187–194.
67.
BanduraA.Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process1991; 50: 248–287.
68.
MorrisCDollHAWainwrightA, et al. The Oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children: scaling, reliability and validity. J Bone Joint Surg Br2008; 90: 1451–1456.
69.
AndreMHagelbergSStenstromCH.The juvenile arthritis foot disability index: development and evaluation of measurement properties. J Rheumatol2004; 31: 2488–2493.
70.
GarrowAPPapageorgiouACSilmanAJ, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. Pain2000; 85(1–2): 107–113.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
