Observational studyClinical orthopaedics and related research2024
The Forgotten Joint Score Is a Valid Outcome Measure for Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Prospective Study.
Observational study in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Joint Line Level in Total Ankle Arthroplasty: Standard Techniques vs Patient-Specific Instruments.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2024Article
- CORR Insights®: The Forgotten Joint Score Is a Valid Outcome Measure for Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Prospective Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe success of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) involves objective and subjective parameters such as joint motion and implant survival. Patient-reported outcome measures provide key context from the patient's perspective so that we can evaluate the results of these procedures. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) has demonstrated validity and reliability in other arthroplasties, but the existing evidence on the FJS in TAA is very limited. QUESTION/PURPOSES: We aimed to assess the reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and floor and ceiling effects, as well as to perform a gender analysis, of the FJS in patients who had undergone TAA.
methodsA prospective, observational study enrolled patients who underwent TAA at our institution between June 2021 and May 2023. The three-component TAA was performed through an anterior approach. A total of 120 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years) participated, which was 83% (120 of 145) of those eligible, and 77% (92 of 120) of those patients underwent follow-up assessments at 12 ± 1 months after surgery. A cross-culturally adapted and validated version of the FJS in our language (Italian) was used. Additionally, three other commonly used patient-reported outcome measures for TAA were administered: the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), and the VAS.
resultsReliability was demonstrated by excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α coefficient = 0.95) and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99; standard error of measurement = 2.7). Robust validity was observed, in that the FJS had a strong correlation with the AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score, the MOXFQ, and the VAS (Pearson and Spearman values consistently above 0.7 or below -0.7). Responsiveness to change was observed between 6 and 12 months (Cohen d = 0.37). Low ceiling and floor effects at both 6 months (4% and 3% reached top and bottom scores, respectively) and 12 months (10% and 0% reached top and bottom scores, respectively) were demonstrated, below the recommended 15% interpretability threshold. No association between outcomes and patient gender was observed.
conclusionTest properties and validity of the FJS were strong in patients who underwent TAA. It seems suitable for clinical use, although future studies should seek to replicate or refute our findings in other patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic 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.