Abstract
Category:
Other
Introduction/Purpose:
Optimising clinical practice requires emphasis on patient-orientated care and therefore patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) play a key role in shaping evidence-based clinical guidelines. As such, it is crucial that we use appropriate, valid and reliable PROMs to quantify outcomes in orthopaedic research. A previous systematic review evaluating evidence published between 2002-2011 identified 139 different PROMs used in the foot and ankle literature and found the most common PROM was The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score. However, in 2011, AOFAS issued a position statement outlining the lack of reliability and validity of the AOFAS score, describing it as a ‘less than ideal’ measure. This systematic review aims to provide an updated analysis of the PROMS used in the foot and ankle literature.
Methods:
This systematic review was performed according to PRIMSA guidelines. An electronic title/abstract screen of every article published between January 2012- December 2022 in Foot and ankle international, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy, The Bone and Joint Journal and The American Journal of Sports Medicine was performed by two reviewers. Articles with a foot and ankle focus were selected for full text screening and papers reporting at least one PROM were included in the final review. The following data was extracted from each article: journal of publication, month/year of publication, pathology/intervention described, PROMS reported and use of the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) to evaluate post intervention changes in PROMs. The number of studies using each individual PROM was calculated and a subgroup analysis was performed to investigate variation in PROM selection according to year of publication, journal of publication and the condition being investigated.
Results:
A total of 3,174 foot and ankle articles were identified, of which 1,168 (36.8%) articles reporting at least one PROM were included. The most common PROM was the AOFAS score, reported in 50.3% of studies, followed by visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score (44.4%) and 36-item short form survey (SF-36) (15.3%). Use of the AOFAS score declined across the review period. Between 2012-2016 AOFAS was the most common PROM, whilst VAS pain was most common in four of the last six years. Although some variation in PROMs according to clinical pathology exists, AOFAS score is featured in the top 3 most common PROMs for every analysed condition. Only 8/1,168 (0.7%) articles reported the number of patients achieving a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) post-intervention.
Conclusion:
Whilst use of the AOFAS score declined over the review period, it remains the most common PROM overall across all included journals and many conditions. There exists a lack of consensus regarding the most suitable alternative PROMs, with multiple validated instruments including FAOS, FAAM and FFI used inconsistently with relatively low frequency. There is a heavy reliance on statistical significance to evaluate and compare post-intervention PROM changes. However, it is important to quantify PROMs according to the patient perspective. Reporting the proportion of patients achieving MCID will allow clinicians to interpret PROMs and develop management guidelines in a patient-focused manner.
