ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
A new patient-reported outcome measure for the evaluation of ankle instability: description of the development process and validation protocol.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Virtual reality-based interventions enhance functional status, balance and muscle strength in patients with ankle instability: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Rebuilding Stability: Exploring the Best Rehabilitation Methods for Chronic Ankle Instability.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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
backgroundAcute ankle sprains represent one of the most common traumatic injuries to the musculoskeletal system. Many individuals with these injuries experience unresolved symptoms such as instability and recurrent sprains, leading to chronic ankle instability (CAI), which affects their ability to maintain an active lifestyle. While rehabilitation programs focusing on sensorimotor, neuromuscular, strength and balance training are primary treatments, some patients require surgery when rehabilitation fails. A critical analysis of the patient-reported outcome tools (PROs) used to assess CAI surgical outcomes raises some concerns about their measurement properties in CAI patients, which may ultimately affect the quality of evidence supporting current surgical practice. The aim of this research is to develop and validate a new PRO for the assessment of ankle instability and CAI treatment outcomes, following recent methodological guidelines, with the implicit aim of contributing to the generation of scientifically meaningful evidence for clinical practice in patients with ankle instability.
methodsFollowing the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN), an Ankle Instability Treatment Index (AITI) will be developed and validated. The process begins with qualitative research based on face‒to‒face interviews with CAI individuals to explore the subjective experience of living with ankle instability. The data from the interviews will be coded following an inductive approach and used to develop the AITI content. The preliminary version of the scale will be refined through an additional round of face‒to‒face interviews with a new set of CAI subjects to define the AITI content coverage, relevance and clarity. Once content validity has been examined, the AITI will be subjected to quantitative analysis of different measurement properties: construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. DISCUSSION: The development of AITI aims to address the limitations of existing instruments for evaluating surgical outcomes in patients with CAI. By incorporating patient input and adhering to contemporary standards for validity and reliability, this tool seeks to provide a reliable and meaningful assessment of treatment effects.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.