A Systematic Review of the Outcome Evaluation Tools for the Foot and Ankle

Pejma Shazadeh Safavi, Cory Janney, Daniel Jupiter, Daniel Kunzler, Roger Bui, Vinod Panchbhavi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. The goal of this systematic review is to determine the most commonly used outcome measurement tools used by foot and ankle specialists and determine their limitations, such as whether they are validated, have floor/ceiling effects, and so on. Methods. A literature search was conducted to identify primary publications between January 1, 2012 and July 1, 2017 that concern care of the foot and ankle and use any established grading criteria to evaluate patients. Results. In 669 publications, 76 scoring systems were used. The 10 most common were American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), visual analog scale (VAS), Short Form–36 (SF-36), Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), SF-12, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), and Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). AOFAS was used in 393 articles, VAS in 308, and SF-36 in 133 publications. AOFAS, VAS, and SF-36 were used to evaluate 23,352, 20,759, and 13,184 patients respectively. AOFAS and VAS were used simultaneously in 172 publications. Conclusion. While there are many different scoring systems available for foot and ankle specialists to use to assess or demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments, the AOFAS, while it is an unvalidated scoring system, is the most commonly used scoring system in this review. Clinical Relevance. This review presents data about commonly used patient reported outcomes systems in foot and ankle surgery. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Systematic review.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalFoot and Ankle Specialist
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Ankle
Foot
Orthopedics
Visual Analog Scale
Publications
Osteoarthritis

Keywords

  • grading systems
  • outcome studies
  • patient reported
  • PROMIS

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Podiatry
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

A Systematic Review of the Outcome Evaluation Tools for the Foot and Ankle. / Shazadeh Safavi, Pejma; Janney, Cory; Jupiter, Daniel; Kunzler, Daniel; Bui, Roger; Panchbhavi, Vinod.

In: Foot and Ankle Specialist, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9fce53ca754e4739a790d6936f62327f,
title = "A Systematic Review of the Outcome Evaluation Tools for the Foot and Ankle",
abstract = "Background. The goal of this systematic review is to determine the most commonly used outcome measurement tools used by foot and ankle specialists and determine their limitations, such as whether they are validated, have floor/ceiling effects, and so on. Methods. A literature search was conducted to identify primary publications between January 1, 2012 and July 1, 2017 that concern care of the foot and ankle and use any established grading criteria to evaluate patients. Results. In 669 publications, 76 scoring systems were used. The 10 most common were American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), visual analog scale (VAS), Short Form–36 (SF-36), Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), SF-12, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), and Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). AOFAS was used in 393 articles, VAS in 308, and SF-36 in 133 publications. AOFAS, VAS, and SF-36 were used to evaluate 23,352, 20,759, and 13,184 patients respectively. AOFAS and VAS were used simultaneously in 172 publications. Conclusion. While there are many different scoring systems available for foot and ankle specialists to use to assess or demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments, the AOFAS, while it is an unvalidated scoring system, is the most commonly used scoring system in this review. Clinical Relevance. This review presents data about commonly used patient reported outcomes systems in foot and ankle surgery. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Systematic review.",
keywords = "grading systems, outcome studies, patient reported, PROMIS",
author = "{Shazadeh Safavi}, Pejma and Cory Janney and Daniel Jupiter and Daniel Kunzler and Roger Bui and Vinod Panchbhavi",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1938640018803747",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Foot & ankle specialist",
issn = "1938-6400",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Systematic Review of the Outcome Evaluation Tools for the Foot and Ankle

AU - Shazadeh Safavi, Pejma

AU - Janney, Cory

AU - Jupiter, Daniel

AU - Kunzler, Daniel

AU - Bui, Roger

AU - Panchbhavi, Vinod

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background. The goal of this systematic review is to determine the most commonly used outcome measurement tools used by foot and ankle specialists and determine their limitations, such as whether they are validated, have floor/ceiling effects, and so on. Methods. A literature search was conducted to identify primary publications between January 1, 2012 and July 1, 2017 that concern care of the foot and ankle and use any established grading criteria to evaluate patients. Results. In 669 publications, 76 scoring systems were used. The 10 most common were American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), visual analog scale (VAS), Short Form–36 (SF-36), Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), SF-12, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), and Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). AOFAS was used in 393 articles, VAS in 308, and SF-36 in 133 publications. AOFAS, VAS, and SF-36 were used to evaluate 23,352, 20,759, and 13,184 patients respectively. AOFAS and VAS were used simultaneously in 172 publications. Conclusion. While there are many different scoring systems available for foot and ankle specialists to use to assess or demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments, the AOFAS, while it is an unvalidated scoring system, is the most commonly used scoring system in this review. Clinical Relevance. This review presents data about commonly used patient reported outcomes systems in foot and ankle surgery. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Systematic review.

AB - Background. The goal of this systematic review is to determine the most commonly used outcome measurement tools used by foot and ankle specialists and determine their limitations, such as whether they are validated, have floor/ceiling effects, and so on. Methods. A literature search was conducted to identify primary publications between January 1, 2012 and July 1, 2017 that concern care of the foot and ankle and use any established grading criteria to evaluate patients. Results. In 669 publications, 76 scoring systems were used. The 10 most common were American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), visual analog scale (VAS), Short Form–36 (SF-36), Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), SF-12, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), and Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). AOFAS was used in 393 articles, VAS in 308, and SF-36 in 133 publications. AOFAS, VAS, and SF-36 were used to evaluate 23,352, 20,759, and 13,184 patients respectively. AOFAS and VAS were used simultaneously in 172 publications. Conclusion. While there are many different scoring systems available for foot and ankle specialists to use to assess or demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments, the AOFAS, while it is an unvalidated scoring system, is the most commonly used scoring system in this review. Clinical Relevance. This review presents data about commonly used patient reported outcomes systems in foot and ankle surgery. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Systematic review.

KW - grading systems

KW - outcome studies

KW - patient reported

KW - PROMIS

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059066620&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059066620&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1938640018803747

DO - 10.1177/1938640018803747

M3 - Article

JO - Foot & ankle specialist

JF - Foot & ankle specialist

SN - 1938-6400

ER -