ReviewFoot & ankle orthopaedics2019
Patient-Reported Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics.
Review in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Dutch patient-based Constant Murley score cannot be used interchangeably with the clinician-based Constant Murley score in shoulder arthroplasty patients.Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty · 2026Article
- The Future of Spinal Trauma Research: Epidemiological Approach to Measuring Recovery.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Plantar Heel Pain Management: A Survey of UK Registered Healthcare Professionals.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
- Suture-Button Repair Improves Outcomes in Arthroscopically Diagnosed Chronic Syndesmotic Injury Despite Low Imaging Sensitivity.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Risk factors for non-compliance of patient reported outcome measures following achilles tendon repair surgery.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Removal of Metalwork After Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation Internal Fixation: A Retrospective Study from a Major Trauma Centre with More Than 2 Years of Follow-Up.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- PROMIS Minimal Clinically Important Differences Across Foot and Ankle Surgeries.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Percutaneous hallux fusion with calcaneus bone autograft: a retrospective cohort study of clinical and radiographic outcomes.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Long-term Outcomes After Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Acceptability, Perceptions, and Experiences Regarding Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system instruments in knee arthroplasty patients: a systematic review of the literature.Knee surgery & related research · 2023Review
- Preoperative education in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Simple foot an ankle value: a simple evaluation correlated to the existing PROMs.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS): Reference Values From a National Representative Sample.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2023Article
- How to Measure Foot Self-Care? A Methodological Review of Instruments.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Many-faceted rasch calibration of the foot function index-revised short form.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2022Article
- A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Trauma Trials: What Are We Measuring?Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Review
- Virtual clinics in foot and ankle surgery: patient and clinician perceptions.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2021Observational
- Lisfranc injuries: fix or fuse? : a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature presenting outcome after surgical treatment for Lisfranc injuries.Bone & joint open · 2021Article
- Comparison of Generic, Musculoskeletal-Specific, and Foot and Ankle-Specific Outcome Measures Over Time in Tibial Plafond Fractures.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2019Article
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
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a measure of health care quality that reflect the patient's perceptions of their own health status. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in implementation of PROs into everyday clinical practice. There are many dozens of PROs available to foot and ankle surgeons with little consensus on which measures are most appropriate for a given condition. These measures vary widely in length, validity, and content. When integrating PROs into clinical practice, we recommend that clinicians should collect, at a minimum, validated PRO scores that assess pain, function, and general health. Furthermore, concise instruments should be used wherever possible to minimize patient burden, maximize patient engagement, and ensure meaningful data are collected. In the near future, outcomes registries employing computer adaptive testing will facilitate the routine collection of PRO data from all patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.