Development and Validation of the Ankle Fracture Outcome of Rehabilitation Measure (A-FORM)

McPhail, Steven; Williams, Cylie; Schuetz, Michael; Baxter, Brett; Tonks, Peter; Haines, Terrence Peter

doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4980

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The summary score conversion table is found in the user manual which can be requested from the developers at no cost to users. The summary score conversion was based on the Rasch analysis presented in the development article included in this review [32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

McKeown

Ellard

Rabiu

et al. 2019

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAnkle fractures are painful and debilitating injuries that pose a significant burden to society and healthcare systems. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials of interventions for ankle fracture but there is little evidence on their validity and reliability. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise evidence for the measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs used in adults with an ankle fracture using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) methodology.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL online databases for evidence of measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs. Articles were included if they assessed or described the development of the PROM in adults with ankle fracture. Articles were ineligible if they used the PROM to assess the measurement properties of another instrument. Abstracts without full articles and conference proceedings were ineligible, as were articles that adapted the PROM under evaluation without any formal justification of the changes as part of a cross-cultural validation or translation process. Two reviewers completed the screening. To assess methodological quality we used COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarised evidence using COSMIN quality criteria and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data for a sample of articles.ResultsThe searches returned a total of 377 articles. From these, six articles were included after application of eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated three PROMs: A-FORM, OMAS and AAOS. The A-FORM had evidence of a robust development process within the patient population, however lacks post-formulation testing. The OMAS showed sufficient levels of reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The AAOS showed low quality evidence of sufficient construct validity.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a particular PROM for use in adult ankle fracture research based on COSMIN methodology. Further validation of these outcome measures is required in order to ensure PROMs used in this area are sufficiently valid and reliable to assess treatment effects. This would enable high quality, evidenced-based management of adults with ankle fracture.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

McKeown

Ellard

Rabiu

et al. 2019

J Patient Rep Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite some evidence for the validity and reliability of the OMAS [25, 26], there is debate amongst clinicians and researchers regarding its suitability for use, particularly with regard to the lack of a formal development process and a systematic review highlighted concerns with this in particular [11]. The research group recommended the use of a newer PROM, developed in 2014 specifically for this injury, known as the Ankle Fracture Outcome of Rehabilitation Measure (A-FORM) [27]. However, the researchers noted that there was little post-formulation validity and reliability testing on this outcome measure and results here show that this it has yet to be collected as a primary outcome measure in this topic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary outcome measures used in interventional trials for ankle fractures: a systematic review

McKeown

Rabiu

Ellard

et al. 2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ankle fractures cause considerable pain, loss of function and healthcare resource use. High quality randomised controlled trials are required to evaluate the optimal management protocols for ankle fracture. However, there is debate regarding the most appropriate outcome measure to use when assessing patients with ankle fractures. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and summarise primary outcome measure use in clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for adults with an ankle fracture. Methods We performed comprehensive searches of the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, as well as ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials.gov online clinical trial registries on 19/06/2019 with no date limits applied. The titles and abstracts were initially screened to identify randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for ankle fracture in adults. Two authors independently screened the full text of any articles which could potentially be eligible. Descriptive statistics we used to summarise the outcome measures collected in these articles including an assessment of trends over time. Secondary analysis included a descriptive summary of the multi-item patient reported outcome measures used in this study type. Results The searches returned a total of 3380 records. Following application of the eligibility criteria, 121 records were eligible for inclusion in this review. The most frequently collected primary outcome measures in this type of publication was the Olerud Molander Ankle Score, followed by radiographic and range of movement assessments. There was a total of 28 different outcome measures collected and five different multi-item, patient reported outcome measures collected as the primary outcome measure. There was a sequential increase in the number of this type of study published per decade since the 1980’s. Conclusion This review demonstrates the wide range of measurement methods used to assess outcome in adults with an ankle fracture. Future research should focus on establishing the validity and reliability of the outcome measures used in this patient population. Formulation of a consensus based core outcome set for adults with an ankle fracture would be advantageous for ensuring homogeneity across studies in order to meta-analyse trial results. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-019-2770-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The A-FORM emerged as the only PROM that had been developed specifically for ankle fractures with acceptable psychometric qualities. Despite this, the tool lacked further investigation performance over a longer rehabilitation period, with data only reported for ≤16 weeks after fracture (28). The A-FORM appears relatively new and requires more analyses alongside other PROMs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Recovery After Ankle Fractures: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Scoring Systems

Broughton

Williams

2018

The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recovery after ankle fractures places a considerable burden on patients both short and long term. Numerous tools called patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to measure the outcome of ankle fractures. They can assist clinicians to measure the effect, guide intervention, and assess the rate of recovery. We identified and evaluated the psychometric properties of PROMs used in the assessment of ankle fractures. In a systematic search, we examined 4 databases from inception to December 4, 2016. Search terms included ankle fracture, ankle pain, disability, gait, questionnaire, and PROMs. Reference lists were also examined. The inclusion criteria were English studies and adult populations. The psychometric properties of the identified PROMs were examined, including internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity, floor-ceiling effects, and minimally important clinical differences. We identified 22 PROMs relating to ankle pain and disability. Only 5 were specifically used for ankle fractures. The 36-item short-form health survey and short musculoskeletal functional assessment reported floor-ceiling effects, and the lower extremity functional scale reported good responsiveness and content validity, although these are not tools specifically related to ankle fractures. The ankle-fracture outcome of rehabilitation measure (A-FORM) and the Olerud and Molander questionnaire were ankle fracture specific and assessed for internal consistency and validity. Clinicians should use the most appropriate PROM to evaluate patients' recovery from ankle fractures. The A-FORM currently has the most appropriate evidence supporting its use as a PROM for ankle fracture management and rehabilitation.

show abstract

Development and Validation of the Ankle Fracture Outcome of Rehabilitation Measure (A-FORM)

Cited by 16 publications

References 60 publications

A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

Primary outcome measures used in interventional trials for ankle fractures: a systematic review

Measuring Recovery After Ankle Fractures: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Scoring Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About