A 5-Year Review of Clinical Outcome Measures Published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery

Abstract

This investigation presents a review of all of the clinical outcome measures used by authors and published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015. Of 1,336 articles published during this time frame, 655 (49.0%) were classified as original research and included in this analysis. Of these 655 articles, 151 (23.1%) included at least one clinical outcome measure. Thirty-seven unique clinical outcome scales were used by authors and published during this period. The most frequently reported scales in the 151 included articles were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scales (54.3%; n = 82), visual analog scale (35.8%; n = 54), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (any version) (10.6%; n = 16), Foot Function Index (5.3%; n = 8), Maryland Foot Score (4.0%; n = 6), and Olerud and Molander scoring system (4.0%; n = 6). Twenty-four articles (15.9%) used some form of original/subjective measure of patient satisfaction/expectation. The results of this investigation detail the considerable variety of clinical outcome measurement tools used by authors in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery and might support the need for a shift toward the consistent use of a smaller number of valid, reliable, and clinically useful scales in the podiatric medical literature.

The use of patient-reported outcome measures in the literature on traumatic foot fractures: A systematic review

“…The PROMs reported to be used most often were the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale, MFS, AOFAS Midfoot Scale, and FFI, respectively. This research supports previous study outcomes stating that the AOFAS Ankle-Hindfoot Scale is the most popular PROM used in all foot and ankle literature to date [7][8][9][10] . Additionally, it confirms the same is true for literature on foot fractures Furthermore, the calcaneus, talus, Lisfranc joint, and the ossa metatarsalia were analyzed most often.…”

“…Instead, they concluded that for none of the examined instruments this was the case and emphasized the need for a satisfactory one. Four similar studies concluded that a considerable variety of instruments is used in the foot and ankle literature [8][9][10][11] . This is undesirable, especially when the use of different instruments restricts adequate comparison of studies in reviews or meta-analyses [ 9 , 10 ].…”

Which Clinical Outcome Scores Are More Frequently Used in the Literature on Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus? A Systematic Review

“…In 2011, AOFAS published a position statement indicating that their clinical rating system was not considered valid or reliable, advising against its continued use. 19 However, a study conducted in 2017 by Hasenstein et al 20 found AOFAS to be the clinical outcome assessment tool most used by authors and published in medical journals. The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is a 42-item questionnaire divided into five categories: pain, other symptoms, function in daily life, sports and recreation, and quality of life.…”

Comparison of the efficacy of posterior-anterior screws, anterior-posterior screws and a posterior-anterior plate in the fixation of posterior malleolar fractures with a fragment size of ≥ 15 and < 15%

“…During the follow-up period, anterioposterior and lateral X-rays were taken to observe the status of the fracture healing. During the final follow up, functional outcomes were assessed with the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score [ 17 ].…”