Background. The goal of this systematic review is to determine the most commonly used outcome measurement tools used by foot and ankle specialists and determine their limitations, such as whether they are validated, have floor/ceiling effects, and so on. Methods. A literature search was conducted to identify primary publications between January 1, 2012 and July 1, 2017 that concern care of the foot and ankle and use any established grading criteria to evaluate patients. Results. In 669 publications, 76 scoring systems were used. The 10 most common were American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), visual analog scale (VAS), Short Form–36 (SF-36), Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), SF-12, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), and Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). AOFAS was used in 393 articles, VAS in 308, and SF-36 in 133 publications. AOFAS, VAS, and SF-36 were used to evaluate 23,352, 20,759, and 13,184 patients respectively. AOFAS and VAS were used simultaneously in 172 publications. Conclusion. While there are many different scoring systems available for foot and ankle specialists to use to assess or demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments, the AOFAS, while it is an unvalidated scoring system, is the most commonly used scoring system in this review. Clinical Relevance. This review presents data about commonly used patient reported outcomes systems in foot and ankle surgery.
GuytonGP.Theoretical limitations of the AOFAS scoring systems: an analysis using Monte Carlo modeling. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:779-787.
2.
EechauteCVaesPVan AerschotLAsmanSDuquetW.The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:6.
3.
ButtonGPinneyS.A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system?Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25:521-525.
4.
HuntKJHurwitD.Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e118(1-9).
5.
FarivarSSCunninghamWEHaysRD.Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey, VI. Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2007;5:54.
6.
KunzlerDShazadeh SafaviPJupiterDPanchbhaviVK. A comparison of removal rates of headless screws versus headed screws in calcaneal osteotomy [published online November 1, 2017]. Foot Ankle Spec. doi:10.1177/1938640017744640.
7.
Shazadeh SafaviPJupiterDCPanchbhaviV.A systematic review of current surgical interventions for Charcot neuroarthropathy of the midfoot. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;56:1249-1252.
8.
CookJJCookEARosenblumBILandsmanASRoukisTS.Validation of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons Scoring Scales. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011;50:420-429.
9.
SmithMVKleinSEClohisyJCBacaGRBrophyRHWrightRW.Lower extremity–specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:468-477.
10.
WrightRW.Knee injury outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17:31-39.
Budiman-MakEConradKJMazzaJStuckRM.A review of the foot function index and the foot function index—revised. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013;6:5.
13.
Budiman-MakEConradKJRoachKE.The Foot Function Index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:561-570.
14.
RoosEMBrandssonSKarlssonJ.Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:788-794.
15.
HaleSAHertelJ.Reliability and sensitivity of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2005;40:35-40.
16.
CarciaCRMartinRLDrouinJM.Validity of the foot and ankle ability measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2008;43:179-183.
17.
SwiontkowskiMFEngelbergRMartinDPAgelJ.Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1245-1260.
18.
ScottDJWatsonJDHeafnerTAClemensMSPropperBWArthursZM.Validation of the short musculoskeletal function assessment in patients with battlefield-related extremity vascular injuries. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:1620-1626.
19.
VeltmanESHofstadCJWitteveenAGH. Are current foot- and ankle outcome measures appropriate for the evaluation of treatment for osteoarthritis of the ankle? Evaluation of ceiling effects in foot- and ankle outcome measures. Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;23:168-172.
20.
BusseJWBhandariMGuyattGH, et al; SPRINT Investigators. Use of both short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire and short form-36 among tibial-fracture patients was redundant. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1210-1217.
21.
HawkerGAMianSKendzerskaTFrenchM.Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for pain (VAS pain), Numeric Rating Scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(suppl 11):S240-S252.
22.
HuskissonEC.Measurement of pain. Lancet. 1974;2:1127-1131.
23.
DownieWWLeathamPARhindVMWrightVBrancoJAAndersonJA.Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1978;37:378-381.
24.
JensenMPKarolyPBraverS.The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27:117-126.
25.
FerrazMBQuaresmaMRAquinoLRAtraETugwellPGoldsmithCH.Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1990;17:1022-1024.
26.
ScottJHuskissonEC.Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales. Ann Rheum Dis. 1979;38:560.
27.
WolfeFMichaudK.Assessment of pain in rheumatoid arthritis: minimal clinically significant difference, predictors, and the effect of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. J Rheumatol. 2007;34:1674-1683.
28.
ScottJHuskissonEC.Graphic representation of pain. Pain. 1976;2:175-184.
29.
KremerEAtkinsonJHIgnelziRJ.Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain. 1981;10:241-248.
30.
SooHooNFVyasRSamimiD.Responsiveness of the Foot Function Index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:930-934.
31.
WareJEJrGandekB.Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:903-912.
32.
KosinskiMKellerSDHatoumHTKongSXWareJEJr.The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care. 1999;37(5 suppl):MS10-MS22.
33.
KosinskiMKellerSDWareJEJrHatoumHTKongSX.The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: relative validity of scales in relation to clinical measures of arthritis severity. Med Care. 1999;37(5 suppl):MS23-MS39.
34.
AmadioPCSilversteinMDIlstrupDMSchleckCDJensenLM.Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: the relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical examination measures. J Hand Surg Am. 1996;21:338-346.
35.
BeatonDRichardsRR.Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of 5 shoulder questionnaires. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7:565-572.
36.
BessetteLSanghaOKuntzKM, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1998;36:491-502.
37.
KatzJNGelbermanRHWrightEALewRALiangMH.Responsiveness of self-reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1994;32:1127-1133.
38.
KocherMSHoranMPBriggsKKRichardsonTRO’HolleranJHawkinsRJ.Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2006-2011.
39.
MarxRGJonesECAllenAA, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(10):1459-1469.
40.
SooHooNFShulerMFlemingLL; American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24:50-55.
41.
ToolanBCWright QuinonesVJCunninghamBJBrageME.An evaluation of the use of retrospectively acquired preoperative AOFAS clinical rating scores to assess surgical outcome after elective foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:775-778.
42.
PinskerEDanielsTR.AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32:841-842.
43.
KearneyRSAchtenJLambSEPlantCCostaML.A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess Achilles tendon rupture management: what’s being used and should we be using it?Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:1102-1109.
44.
NaalFDImpellizzeriFMRippsteinPF.Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:815-826.
45.
HartDLMioduskiJEStratfordPW.Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:629-638.
46.
HsuehIPWangWCWangCH, et al. A simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement instrument. Phys Ther. 2006;86:936-943.
47.
WangYCHartDLStratfordPWMioduskiJE.Clinical interpretation of a lower-extremity functional scale-derived computerized adaptive test. Phys Ther. 2009;89:957-968.
48.
WangYCHartDLStratfordPWMioduskiJE.Clinical interpretation of computerized adaptive test outcome measures in patients with foot/ankle impairments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39:753-764.
49.
HungMCleggDOGreeneTSaltzmanCL.Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res. 2011;29:947-953.
50.
HungMCleggDOGreeneTWeirCSaltzmanCL.A lower extremity physical function computerized adaptive testing instrument for orthopaedic patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33:326-335.
BaumhauerJF.Patient-reported outcomes—are they living up to their potential?N Engl J Med. 2017;377:6-9.
53.
HoBHouckJRFlemisterAS, et al. Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative success in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37:911-918.
54.
PapugaMOBeckCAKatesSLSchwarzEMMaloneyMD.Validation of GAITRite and PROMIS as high-throughput physical function outcome measures following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Res. 2014;32:793-801.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
