ArticleInternational orthopaedics2016
The foot function index is more sensitive to change than the Leeds Foot Impact Scale for evaluating rheumatoid arthritis patients after forefoot or hindfoot reconstruction.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of foot orthoses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis related to disability and pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018Pooled it
- Update of Modified Version of the Foot Function Index Tool Spanish Version (FFI-Sp), in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Cross Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the clinical utility of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Foot Disease Activity Index.Rheumatology international · 2022Article
- Foot Assessment Clinical Scales in Charcot-Marie-Tooth Patients: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Minimally important change, measurement error, and responsiveness for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score.Acta orthopaedica · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study examines the responsiveness of the Foot Functional Index (FFI) and Leeds Foot Impact Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis (LFIS-RA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving a forefoot or hindfoot reconstruction.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study including 30 rheumatoid arthritis patients with severe rheumatoid foot deformities in need for surgical correction. Responsiveness was measured using distribution-based methods (standardized effect size, standardized response mean and Guyatt responsiveness ratio) and anchor-based methods (receiver operating characteristics curves and correlation analyses) by making use of an anchor question. To examine the depth of the questionnaires we measured the floor and ceiling effects.
resultsThe study population consisted of three males and 27 females, with a mean age of 62 years. The mean follow-up time was 38 months. Twenty-two feet received a forefoot reconstruction and eight feet a triple arthrodesis. For the FFI the SES was -0.80, SRM was -0.85 and the GRR was -1.25. For the LFIS-RA the SES was 0.58, SRM was 0.58 and the GRR was 0.88. The AUC was 0.741 and 0.645 for FFI and LFIS, respectively. Contrary to the LFIS-RA, the FFI showed a significant correlation between change score and the anchor question. Both questionnaires did not show a significant floor or ceiling effect.
conclusionThe FFI showed a large responsiveness and the LFIS- RA showed moderate responsiveness in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving forefoot or hindfoot surgery, without floor or ceiling effects in both questionnaires.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26842388What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.