Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29026933›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2018

Measurement properties of the most commonly used Foot- and Ankle-Specific Questionnaires: the FFI, FAOS and FAAM. A systematic review.

I N Sierevelt, R Zwiers, W Schats, D Haverkamp, C B Terwee, P A Nolte, G M M J Kerkhoffs

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Foot and Ankle Outcome Instruments: Missing the Target.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

I N SiereveltSlotervaart Center of Orthopedic Research and Education (SCORE), Orthopedic Department, MC Slotervaart, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. I.Sierevelt@gmail.com.
R ZwiersOrthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
W SchatsDepartment of Scientific Information Service, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
D HaverkampSlotervaart Center of Orthopedic Research and Education (SCORE), Orthopedic Department, MC Slotervaart, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P A NolteSpaarne Gasthuis Academy, Orthopedic Department, Spaarne Gasthuis Hospital, Spaarnepoort 1, 2134 TM, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
G M M J KerkhoffsOrthopedic Research Center Amsterdam, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn the foot and ankle literature, a wide range of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is used, however, consensus as to which PROMs are preferred is lacking. Selection of a PROM is among other reasons, often based on measurement properties without considering the methodological quality of the studies that evaluate these measurement properties. The aim of current study was first to identify the most frequently used foot and ankle-specific PROMs in recent orthopaedic foot and ankle literature, and second to conduct a systematic review to synthesize and critically appraise the measurement properties of these PROMS.

methodsSix PubMed indexed journals focussing on foot and ankle research were screened to identify most commonly used foot and ankle-specific PROMs over a 2 year period (2015-2016). Subsequently, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Scopus to identify relevant studies on their measurement properties. Methodological quality assessment was performed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, criteria for good measurement properties were applied, and a level of evidence was determined for the measurement properties of each domain of the questionnaires.

resultsThe three most frequently reported PROMs were the Foot Function Index (FFI), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and the Foot and Ankle Activity Measure (FAAM). Among 2046 unique citations, 50 studies were included evaluating these PROMs. Evidence to support the measurement properties of the FFI was mainly lacking due to poor methodological quality. More evidence was available for the measurement properties of the FAOS and the FAAM, but overall evidence supporting all measurement properties is not yet sufficient.

conclusionThe best available evidence retrieved in this review showed that the FAOS and the FAAM are promising outcome measures for evaluation of patients with foot and ankle conditions, but their shortcomings should be taken into account when interpreting results in clinical setting or trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Indexed as

AnkleAnkle JointFootPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and QuestionnairesChecklistHealth Status IndicatorsHumansRange of Motion, ArticularReproducibility of ResultsCOSMINFoot and Ankle Activity Measure (FAAM)Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS)Foot Function Index (FAAM)Measurement propertiesPROMSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.