advertising
-
1
Hunt KJ, Hurwit D: Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95: e118, 2013.
-
2
Andrawis JP, Chenok KE, Bozic KJ: Health policy implications of outcomes measurement in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471: 3475, 2013.
-
3
Snyder CF, Aaronson NK: Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet 374: 369, 2009.
-
4
Chow A, Mayer EK, Darzi AW, et al: Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery 146: 435, 2009.
-
5
Shirley ED, Sanders JO: Patient satisfaction: implications and predictors of success. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95: e69, 2013.
-
6
Bosco JA III, Sachdev R, Shapiro LA, et al: Measuring quality in orthopaedic surgery: the use of metrics in quality management. Instr Course Lect 63: 47, 2014.
-
7
Katz G, Ong C, Hutzler L, et al: Applying quality principles to orthopaedic surgery. Instr Course Lect 63: 465, 2014.
-
8
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ: A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37: 72, 2007.
-
9
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 25: 521, 2004.
-
10
Smith MV, Klein SE, Clohisy JC, et al: Lower extremity-specific measures of disability and outcome in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95: 468, 2012.
-
11
Shultz S, Olszewski A, Ramsey O, et al: A systematic review of outcome tools used to measure lower leg conditions. Int J Sports Phys Ther 8: 838, 2013.
-
12
Pynsent PB: Choosing an outcome measure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83: 792, 2001.
-
13
Goldstein CL, Schemitsch E, Bhandari M, et al: Comparison of different outcome instruments following foot and ankle trauma. Foot Ankle Int 31: 1075, 2010.
-
14
SooHoo NF, Shuler M, Fleming LL; American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society: Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int 24: 50, 2003.
-
15
Baumhauer JF, Nawoczenski DA, DiGiovanni BF, et al: Reliability and validity of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Clinical Rating Scale: a pilot study for the hallux and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 27: 1014, 2006.
-
16
Madeley NJ, Wing KJ, Topliss C, et al: Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Orthoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Int 33: 57, 2012.
-
17
Pinsker E, Daniels TR: AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems. Foot Ankle Int 32: 842, 2011.
A 5-Year Review of Clinical Outcome Measures Published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
Search for other papers by Todd Hasenstein in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Timothy Greene in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andrew J. Meyr in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This investigation presents a review of all of the clinical outcome measures used by authors and published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015. Of 1,336 articles published during this time frame, 655 (49.0%) were classified as original research and included in this analysis. Of these 655 articles, 151 (23.1%) included at least one clinical outcome measure. Thirty-seven unique clinical outcome scales were used by authors and published during this period. The most frequently reported scales in the 151 included articles were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scales (54.3%; n = 82), visual analog scale (35.8%; n = 54), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (any version) (10.6%; n = 16), Foot Function Index (5.3%; n = 8), Maryland Foot Score (4.0%; n = 6), and Olerud and Molander scoring system (4.0%; n = 6). Twenty-four articles (15.9%) used some form of original/subjective measure of patient satisfaction/expectation. The results of this investigation detail the considerable variety of clinical outcome measurement tools used by authors in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery and might support the need for a shift toward the consistent use of a smaller number of valid, reliable, and clinically useful scales in the podiatric medical literature.
Publisher's Note: Copyright 2017 by the American Podiatric Medical Association and the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. This article is being published jointly in both the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. Either citation can be used when citing this article.
advertising
