ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2023
Foot and Ankle Outcome Instruments: Missing the Target.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Superb microvascular imaging enhances detection of microvascularity in plantar fasciosis: a clinical correlation study.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- [Effectiveness of arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament repair with retaining of avulsion fragments at fibular insertion site].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Single lag-screw-augmented dorsal plating yields superior union and lower costs in first metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2026Article
- Risk factors for non-compliance of patient reported outcome measures following achilles tendon repair surgery.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the EFAS-DK PROM: an observational cohort study of Danish speaking foot and ankle patients.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Observational
- Validity and reliability of the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in one-year postoperative ankle fracture patients-a validation study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Article
- Ankle ligament reconstruction-return to sport after injury scale and return to sports after ankle ligament reconstruction or repair-A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Avulsion fracture is associated with more pain after anatomic repair procedure for ATFL injury at the talar side.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewAlthough developing PROMs is arduous and measuring their psychometric characteristics is even more so, the number of available PROMs has grown dramatically in the foot and ankle community over the past few years. The psychometric properties of foot and ankle PROMs vary considerably, which could explain why there are so many of them used in the literature. This review aims to shed light on the most commonly used PROMs in foot and ankle literature and assess the evidence supporting their use. RECENT
findingsIn this study, very limited evidence was found to support the use of most of the commonly used PROMs in foot and ankle literature, and no evidence was found that supports the use of the most common tool, the AOFAS Clinical Rating System. The quality of the studies examining PROMs was also questioned. Prior to making a conclusive determination regarding each instrument, however, additional research on the evidence is necessary. It is extremely challenging to perform systematic reviews comparing data across foot and ankle studies, and it is almost impossible to pool such data into high-quality meta-analyses. So, we need a foot and ankle score for measuring trauma-related outcomes, a score for measuring elective procedure outcomes, and a score for measuring pediatric foot and ankle.
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.