Chronic ankle instability is generally associated with ankle sprain. Its consequences can be measured by means of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The aim of this review is to identify the PROMs specifically available for chronic ankle instability and to evaluate their methodological quality and that of the cross-cultural adaptations made.
Data Sources
Papers were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar databases, with no time limit applied, based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) type of participants: patients with chronic ankle instability, over 18 years of age; (2)type of study: those specifically focused on this pathology, using PROMs specific to chronic ankle instability and published in English; (3) type of outcome: measurement properties based on COSMIN criteria in patient-reported outcomes associated with chronic ankle instability.
Methods
This systematic review, following the COSMIN checklist, was conducted to determine the methodological quality of PROMs specific to foot and ankle pathologies, for patients presenting chronic ankle instability.
Results
Of the 576 studies identified in the initial search, 34 were included in the final analysis of measurement properties. Four – the Ankle Instability Instrument, the Chronic Ankle Instability Scale, the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool and the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability – were original questionnaires, and the remaining 30 were cross-cultural adaptations.
Conclusion
The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool and the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaires can be useful instruments for evaluating chronic ankle instability, both in patients with this condition and also in non-pathological patients.
ThompsonCSchabrunSRomeroR,et al.Factors contributing to chronic ankle instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews. Sport Med2018 Jan; 48: 189–205.
2.
GribblePADelahuntEBleakleyC, et al.Selection criteria for patients with chronic ankle instability in controlled research: a position statement of the International Ankle Consortium. JOSPT2013 Aug; 43: 585–591.
GribblePABleakleyCMCaulfieldBM, , et al.Evidence review for the 2016 International Ankle Consortium consensus statement on the prevalence, impact and long-term consequences of lateral ankle sprains. Br J Sports Med2016 Dec; 50: 1496–1505.
5.
Ortega-AvilaABCervera-GarviPMarchena-RodriguezA, et al.Conservative treatment for acute ankle sprain: a systematic review. J Clin Med2020; 9: 1–19.
6.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBPatrickDL, et al.The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol2010; 63: 737–745.
7.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 10: 89.
8.
DochertyCLGansnederBMArnoldBL,et al.Development and reliability of the ankle instability instrument. J Athl Train2006 Apr-Jun; 41: 154–158.
9.
TerweeCBJansmaEPRiphagenII,et al.Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res2009; 18: 1115–1123.
10.
PrinsenCACMokkinkLBBouterLM, et al.COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res2018; 27: 1147–1157.
11.
MokkinkLBPrinsenCAPatrickDL, et al.COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Cosm Man Syst Rev PROMs Cosm2018; 27: 1171–1179.
12.
LocquetMBenhotmanBBornheimS, , et al.The “Ankle Instability Instrument”: cross-cultural adaptation and validation in French. Foot Ankle Surg2020; 27: 70–76.
13.
EechauteCVaesPDuquetW. The chronic ankle instability scale: clinimetric properties of a multidimensional, patient-assessed instrument. Phys Ther Sport2008; 9: 57–66.
14.
HillerCERefshaugeKMBundyAC,et al.The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool: a report of validity and reliability testing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2006; 87: 1235–1241.
15.
SimonJDonahueMDochertyC. Development of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI). Foot Ankle Int2012 Sep; 33: 755–763.
16.
MohamadiSEbrahimiIDadgooM,et al.Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and factor analysis of the Persian version of ankle instability instrument. Med J Islam Repub Iran2018; 32: 459–463.
17.
GottliebUYonaTLumbrosoDS,et al.Reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures for ankle instability in Hebrew. Med Sci Monit2022; 28: 1–10.
18.
KhalilAADochertyCLElhafezSM,et al.Validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire (IdFAI-Ar) in college-aged population. Phys Ther Sport2021; 49: 250–254.
19.
MohamadiSDadgooMEbrahimiI, et al.Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire in Persian speaking participants with a history of ankle sprain. Disabil Rehabil2019 Aug; 41: 1931–1936.
20.
Cervera-GarviPOrtega-AvilaABMarchena-RodriguezA,et al.Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire (IdFAI-Sp). Disabil Rehabil2022; 44: 3221–3227.
21.
IzquierdoTGde LeónESMartínRT, et al.Adaptation and transcultural translation into Spanish of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability questionnaire. Musculoskelet Sci Pract2021: 52.
22.
MeeapirakPHunsawongTChatchawanU,et al.Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric properties of the Thai version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI-THAI) questionnaire. Foot Ankle Surg2022; 28: 770–774.
23.
TayfurAŞendilAKarakayaJ,et al.Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability of Turkish version of Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) scale. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc2020; 54: 300–304.
24.
MartinezBRLopes SauersADFerreiraCL, et al.Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of the Brazilian version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) questionnaire. Phys Ther Sport2018 Jan; 29: 1–8.
25.
LiYGuanLKoJ,et al.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of an ankle instability questionnaire for use in Chinese-speaking population. J Sport Heal Sci2019 Nov; 8: 555–560.
26.
WangWShengJTangY, , et al.Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the simplified Chinese version of the identification of functional ankle instability questionnaire in Chinese-speaking patients with chronic ankle instability disorders. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2020; 21: 1–11.
27.
BeaudartCDemoulinCMehmetiK,et al.Validity and reliability of the French translation of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI). Foot Ankle Surg2022; 28: 756–762.
28.
TsekouraMBillisESamadaEK, et al.Cross cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Greek version of Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI) questionnaire. Foot Ankle Surg2021; 27: 906–910.
29.
MinetaSInamiTFukanoM, et al.The reliability, and discriminative ability of the identification of functional ankle instability questionnaire, Japanese version. Phys Ther Sport2019 Jan; 35: 1–6.
30.
KoJRosenABBrownCN. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validation of the Korean version of the Identification Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI). Disabil Rehabil2018 Dec 17; 40: 3185–3190.
31.
OmarMKAbdul-KarimS. Validity and reliability of the Malay version of the Identification of Functional Ankle Instability (IdFAI-M) questionnaire among Malaysian University Athletes. Malaysian Orthop J2021; 15: 32–42.
32.
AmriMIAlzhraniMMAlanaziAD,et al.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the foot function index in patients with chronic lateral ankle instability. J Foot Ankle Res2022 Mar; 15: 21.
33.
HadadiMEbrahimi TakamjaniIEbrahim MosaviM,et al.Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Persian version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Disabil Rehabil2017 Jul 30; 39: 1644–1649.
34.
Cruz-DíazDHita-ContrerasFLomas-VegaR,et al.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT): an instrument to assess unilateral chronic ankle instability. Clin Rheumatol2013; 32: 91–8.
35.
Rodríguez-FernándezÁLRebollo-RoldánJJiménez-RejanoJJ,et al.Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Disabil Rehabil2015 Oct; 37: 1888–1894.
36.
LinCIMayerFWippertPM. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validation of the Taiwan-Chinese version of Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Disabil Rehabil2022; 44: 781–787.
37.
KhanBIkramMShakil-ur-RehmanS,et al.Urdu translation and cross-cultural validation of Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT). BMC Musculoskelet Disord2022; 23: 1–9.
38.
YingyongsaksriSHillerCETharawadeepimukK,et al.Reliability and validation of the Thai version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT-THA). Disabil Rehabil2022: 1–6.
39.
de NoronhaMRefshaugeKMKilbreathSL, , et al.Cross-cultural adaptation of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT). Disabil Rehabil2008 Dec 31; 30: 1959–1965.
40.
WangWLiaoDKangX, et al.Development of a valid Chinese version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool in Chinese-speaking patients with chronic ankle instability disorders. Sci Rep2021; 11: 1–8.
41.
RosenABJohnstonMChungS,et al.The reliability and validity of a digital version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Disabil Rehabil2021 Jun; 43: 1738–1741.
42.
VuurbergGKluitLvan DijkCN. The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) in the Dutch population with and without complaints of ankle instability. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc2018; 26: 882–891.
43.
GeerinckABeaudartCSalvanQ,et al.French Translation and validation of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool, an instrument for measuring functional ankle instability. Foot Ankle Surg2020 Jun; 26: 391–397.
44.
TsekouraMBillisEFousekisK,et al.Cross cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Greek version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Physiother Theory Pract2021; 37: 954–962.
45.
KunugiSMasunariANohB,et al.Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Disabil Rehabil2017 Jan; 39: 50–58.
46.
KoJRosenABBrownCN. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Int J Sports Phys Ther2015; 10: 1007–1014.
47.
ChoiHSShinWS. Validity of the lower extremity functional movement screen in patients with chronic ankle instability. J Phys Ther Sci2015 Jun; 27: 1923–1927.
48.
Goulart NetoAMMaffulliNMiglioriniF,et al.Validation of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) and the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) in individuals with chronic ankle instability: a cross-sectional observational study. J Orthop Surg Res2022 Jan 21; 17: 38.
49.
VilagutGFerrerMRajmilL, , et al.The Spanish version of the Short Form 36 Health Survey: a decade of experience and new developments. Gac Sanit2005; 19: 135–150.
50.
RichterMZechSGeerlingJ,et al.A new foot and ankle outcome score: questionnaire based, subjective, visual-analogue-scale, validated and computerized. Foot Ankle Surg2006; 12: 191–199.
