ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2019
Comparison of Generic, Musculoskeletal-Specific, and Foot and Ankle-Specific Outcome Measures Over Time in Tibial Plafond Fractures.
Article 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in Severe Lower Extremity Trauma: Pooled Data from 7 Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Trials.The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2024Pooled it
- PROMIS Minimal Clinically Important Differences Across Foot and Ankle Surgeries.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Treatment of AO/OTA type 43-C3 pilon fractures with a combination of miniplate and main plate: a retrospective analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Internal consistency and construct validity of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) in older adults.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Which general functional outcome measure does a better job of capturing change in clinical status in pelvic and acetabular fracture patients? An analysis of responsiveness over the first year of recovery.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2021Article
- Comparing the responsiveness of a generic and a musculoskeletal specific functional outcome measure in orthopaedic patients with operative fixation of pelvic ring, acetabulum, or tibia fractures: a comparison between single injury and multiply injured patients.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2021Article
- Measuring Outcomes Over Time in Distal Radius Fractures: A Comparison of Generic, Upper Extremity-Specific and Wrist-Specific Outcome Measures.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study performed a psychometric analysis assessing and comparing the responsiveness of the relevant components of a generic (Short Form-36 [SF36]), a musculoskeletal-specific (Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment [SMFA]), and a foot and ankle-specific (Foot and Ankle Outcome Score [FAOS]) outcome score when evaluating surgically treated tibial plafond fractures over time.
methodsFifty-one patients were followed for 12 months after their tibial plafond fracture. Responsiveness, or the ability to detect clinical change in a disease, was evaluated through the standardized response mean (SRM), the proportion meeting a minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and floor and ceiling effects.
resultsThe SRM of the SF36-Physical Component Summary (PCS) was significantly greater than the SMFA-dysfunction index (DI) (
conclusionsThis study found that the SF36-PCS had greater responsiveness in assessing tibial plafond fractures compared to the SMFA-DI and FAOS-ADL, particularly in the first 6 months after surgery. In addition, limitations were revealed in the SMFA-DI and FAOS-ADL. This study illustrates the necessary diligence required for selection of outcome measures, as musculoskeletal and anatomy specific scores are not necessarily superior. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective cohort study.
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.