Background. Outcome measures are frequently employed in clinical studies to determine the efficacy of orthopaedic surgical procedures. However, substantial variability exists among the outcome instruments utilized in foot and ankle (F&A) literature. The purpose of this study is to determine the number of outcome measures reported in F&A literature recently published in major orthopaedic journals and the association between study characteristics and the use of particular outcome measurement categories. Methods. All manuscripts published in 6 major orthopaedic journals between 2013-2017 reporting at least one clinical outcome measure were collected. For each manuscript, the journal, title, authors, country/region of origin, level of evidence, topic, and anatomic location were recorded. Outcome measures were characterized as generic, F&A specific, and disease specific. Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to test for association between study characteristics and outcome measure categories. Results. A total of 541 F&A articles were included with fifty-two different outcome measures reported. The most popular tool was the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) (56.9%). Generic outcome measures were used in 331 (61.1%) studies, while 440 (81.3%) studies used F&A specific measures and 64 (11.8%) used disease-specific measures. The use of generic and disease-specific outcome measures was associated with a higher level of evidence (p < 0.001). Conclusion. AA substantial variety of outcome measures are employed among recent published studies, with many studies utilizing non-validated measures. Reporting a combination of validated and focused outcome measures is necessary to improve the quality and generalizability of published studies in foot and ankle literature.
MadeleyNJWingKJToplissCPennerMJGlazebrookMAYoungerAS.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.
2.
FarrugiaPGoldsteinCPetrisorBA.Measuring foot and ankle injury outcomes: common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011;42:276-280.
3.
BhandariMGiannoudisPV.Assessing patient outcomes: pearls for clinical practice and research. Injury. 2011;42:231.
4.
LovelockTMBroughtonNSWilliamsCM.The popularity of outcome measures for hip and knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:273-276.
5.
HuntKJHurwitD.Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e118(1-9).
6.
GuzmanJZCutlerHSConnollyJ, et al. Patient-reported outcome instruments in spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:429-437.
7.
RolfsonOBohmEFranklinP, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop. 2016;87(suppl 1):9-23.
8.
RolfsonOWissigSvan MaasakkersL, et al. Defining an International Standard Set of Outcome Measures for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: consensus of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Working Group. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68:1631-1639.
9.
ButtonGPinneyS.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.
10.
PinskerEDanielsTR.AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32:841-842.
11.
NaalFDImpellizzeriFMRippsteinPF.Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:815-826.
12.
KearneyRSAchtenJLambSEPlantCCostaML.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;46:1102-1109.
13.
HuntKJLakeyE.Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2018;49:277-289.
14.
SchrierJCPalmenLNVerheyenCCJansenJKoëterS.Patient-reported outcome measures in hallux valgus surgery: a review of literature. Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;21:11-15.
15.
GuytonGP.Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS Scoring Systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:779-787.
16.
KitaokaHBAlexanderIJAdelaarRS, et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18:187-188.
17.
SooHooNFVyasRSamimiD.Responsiveness of the Foot Function Index, AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:930-934.
18.
SooHooNFSamimiDBVyasRM, et al. Evaluation of the validity of the Foot Function Index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:38-42.
19.
BaumhauerJFMcIntoshSRechtineG.Age and sex differences between patient and physician-derived outcome measures in the foot and ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:209-214.
20.
RobinsonJMCookJLPurdamC, et al. The VISA-A questionnaire: a valid and reliable index of the clinical severity of Achilles tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. 2001;35:335-341.
21.
KerstenPWhitePJTennantA.Is the pain Visual Analogue Scale linear and responsive to change? An exploration using Rasch analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99485.
22.
LeeJSHobdenEStiellIGWellsGA.Clinically important change in the Visual Analogue Scale after adequate pain control. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:1128-1130.
23.
BusijaLOsborneRHNilsdotterABuchbinderRRoosEM.Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in SF-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:55.
24.
SmithMVKleinSEClohisyJCBacaGRBrophyRHWrightRW.Lower extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:468-477.
25.
DawsonJBollerIDollH, et al. Minimally important change was estimated for the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire after foot/ankle surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:697-705.
