Validation of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment in patients with battlefield-related extremity vascular injuries

Scott, Daniel; Watson, John D.; Heafner, Thomas A.; Clemens, Michael S.; Propper, Brandon W.; Arthurs, Zachary M.

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2014.08.060

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The convergent-divergent validity of SMFA has been evaluated with a large variety of validated measures. 6,28,30,32,34,39–45,67 As expected, the SMFA’s dysfunction index correlates highly with 14 out of 17 scales or subscales of validated measures evaluating solely patients’ perceived ability to perform functional tasks. SMFA’s bother index correlates highly with seven out of fifteen of such measures and moderately with five of them.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

“…24 According to this criterion, MFA and both indexes of SMFA do not have any significant floor or ceiling effects when used to evaluate the current function of people with actual disability. 5,6,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] As expected, some ceiling effect can however be observed when the SMFA is used in time points when participants do not have much disability such as before or a long time after an injury. [29][30][31]36 The number of missing items or incomplete questionnaires in the included studies appears adequately low for the MFA and SMFA.…”

Section: Content Validitysupporting

confidence: 65%

“…[29][30][31]36 The number of missing items or incomplete questionnaires in the included studies appears adequately low for the MFA and SMFA. 6,[27][28][29]34 However, it is worth noting that a relatively high proportion of participants (3% to 25%) omit answering to the question related to sexual activities in the SMFA. 6,28,29 This problematic had also been reported in MFA's development study.…”

Section: Content Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Psychometric properties of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: a systematic review

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Content Validitysupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Content Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychometric properties of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: a systematic review

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These military surgeons concluded that the MESS was not useful in battle-field related injuries. Additional studies on battlefield-related extremity vascular injuries did find that those with preserved limbs but high MESS scores (≥ 7) had higher levels of dysfunction as rated with the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment tool (15). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mangled extremity score and amputation

Loja

Sammann

DuBose

et al. 2017

Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS) was developed 25 years ago in an attempt to utilize the extent of skeletal and soft tissue injury, limb ischemia, shock, and age to predict the need for amputation after extremity injury. Subsequently, there have been mixed reviews as to the utility of this score. We hypothesized that the MESS, when applied to a data set collected prospectively in modern times, would not correlate with the need for amputation. Methods We applied the MESS to patient data collected in the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma PROspective Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry. This registry contains prospectively collected demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and outcome data. Results Between 2013 and 2015, 230 patients with lower extremity arterial injuries were entered into the PROOVIT registry. The majority were male with a mean age of 34 years (range 4–92) and a blunt mechanism of injury at a rate of 47.4%. A MESS of 8 or greater was associated with a longer stay in the hospital (median 22.5 (15, 29) vs 12 (6, 21), p=0.006) and ICU (median 6 (2, 13) vs 3 (1, 6), p=0.03). 81.3% of limbs were ultimately salvaged (median MESS 4 (3, 5)) and 18.7% required primary or secondary amputation (median MESS 6 (4, 8), p < 0.001). However, after controlling for confounding variables including mechanism of injury, degree of arterial injury, injury severity score, arterial location, and concomitant injuries, the MESS between salvaged and amputated limbs was no longer significantly different. Importantly, a MESS of 8 predicted in-hospital amputation in only 43.2% of patients. Conclusion Therapeutic advances in the treatment of vascular, orthopedic, neurologic and soft tissue injuries have reduced the diagnostic accuracy of the MESS in predicting the need for amputation. There remains a significant need to examine additional predictors of amputation following severe extremity injury. Level of Evidence Level III evidence, prospective study, prognostic.

show abstract

“…A study by Scott et al demonstrated the reliability of SMFA in evaluating vascular extremity injuries in the trauma setting for armed forces. 17,18 It has been noted that each of the scoring systems discussed in this review demonstrate variable degrees of floor and ceiling effects. 2,15,[19][20][21] For example, FADI was found in one study (Eechaute et al 2 ) to demonstrate both floor and ceiling effects, although in another study (Hale and Hertel 15 ), it only demonstrated a ceiling effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Outcome Evaluation Tools for the Foot and Ankle

Safavi

Janney

Jupiter

et al. 2018

Foot & Ankle Specialist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Systematic review.

show abstract

Validation of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment in patients with battlefield-related extremity vascular injuries

Abstract: Use of the SMFA is validated in those with extremity vascular injuries, and it should be considered an adjunctive tool in evaluating long-term patient outcomes.

Cited by 9 publications

References 32 publications

Psychometric properties of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: a systematic review

Psychometric properties of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: a systematic review

The mangled extremity score and amputation

A Systematic Review of the Outcome Evaluation Tools for the Foot and Ankle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About