Assessment of the structural validity of three foot and ankle specific patient-reported outcome measures

Development of the Foot and Ankle Activity Level Scale (FAALS) Instrument

BACKGROUND

Activity level is a benchmark to document patient recovery; however, there is a lack of instrumentation to measure activity level specific to the foot and ankle. The purpose of this study was to develop a foot and ankle activity level scale (FAALS) instrument that will serve as an effective clinical tool for practitioners by assigning an activity level to patients.

METHODS

This was a 4-phase study with 3 rounds of data collection (n = 1432). Phase 1 was item generation using an expert panel to determine content validity (101 items). In phase 2, all items from phase 1 were piloted (n = 100) to remove poorly performing items (77 items). In phase 3 (n = 505), item reduction, reliability, and validity Rasch analyses were conducted, leaving a total of 22 items. Validity was assessed using outfit mean-square (MNSQ) and infit MNSQ statistics, with acceptable values between 0.5 and 1.5. An additional round of data collection was completed to serve as a validation data set to confirm FAALS instrument structure and psychometric analytics (n = 827). Correlation analysis was performed to assess convergent and divergent validity. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to determine whether the FAALS could detect differences in scores between groups with previously proven factors that affect functional status.

RESULTS

Person reliability was 0.92 and item reliability was 1.00, demonstrating excellent reliability. There was excellent evidence of validity, with mean-square values between 0.5 and 1.5. The 22 FAALS items are summed for a total score that corresponds to one of 4 activity levels. The FAALS instrument demonstrated sensitivity in the ability to discern between groups with expected foot and ankle functional differences for previous ankle surgery status, t(502) = -7.69, P < .001, and body mass index, t(502) = -3.41, P < .001.

CONCLUSION

The FAALS instrument is a short, clinically useful tool to measure activity level specific to the foot and ankle. FAALS normative values provide valuable information for physician-patient communication, which may serve to facilitate shared decision-making, improve postoperative care, and allow physicians to track recovery progress.

Outcome measures after foot and ankle surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Research on outcomes measures after foot and ankle surgery is limited and methodological quality is not always assessed. We aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of patient-related outcome measures used in patients after foot- and ankle surgery.

METHODS

A Medline, Embase and Web of Sciences systematic review was performed including dates from 2000 up to April 2022. Inclusion criteria were foot and/or ankle surgery, described outcome(s) and it's assessed measurement properties. Methodological quality assessment was performed using the NOS-scale and the COSMIN-criteria.

RESULTS

143 studies (n = 18383) were included for final review, 82 about PROMs, 61 about clinical outcomes. A total of 23 different PROMs were evaluated, with a positive result in all measurement properties for the FAOS. There were positive results too for most measurement properties of the LEFS and the MOXFQ. Most clinical outcomes were radiological measures, with a high reliability for most measurements on plain radiographs and CT-scans.

CONCLUSIONS

To monitor foot and ankle outcome and evaluate treatment, we recommend the FAOS as the most suitable foot and ankle PROM.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

2.

Visual analog scale foot and ankle (VAS-FA): Reliability and validity of the Persian version

BACKGROUND

Our purpose was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Persian version of the visual analog scale foot and ankle (VAS-FA) among patients with foot and ankle problems and healthy subjects.

METHODS

The VAS-FA was translated and adapted into Persian (Farsi). Then, 82 participants, including 41 healthy subjects and 41 patients with foot and ankle problems, fulfilled the questionnaire in two sessions. The validity was assessed by correlating VAS-FA with the Persian version of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) and the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's α were used to assess test-retest reliability and internal consistency.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference between healthy participants and patients regarding the total VAS-FA score and its subscales (P < 0.001). The test-retest reliability was excellent, and the internal consistency was good to excellent. The correlation between the total VAS-FA score and FAAM and FAOS scores was good for the healthy subjects and good to excellent for patients.

CONCLUSION

The Persian version of VAS-FA is valid and reliable.

Cross-Culturally Adapted Versions of Patient Reported Outcome Measures for the Lower Extremity

Background

A large number of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed in the English language for various lower extremity orthopaedic pathologies. Twenty different PROMs were recommended for 15 specific musculoskeletal lower extremity pathologies or surgeries. However, the availability of cross-culturally adapted versions of these recommended PROMs is unknown.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify the cross-culturally adapted versions of recommended PROMs for individuals experiencing orthopedic lower extremity pathologies or undergoing surgeries, and to identify the psychometric evidence that supports their utilization.

Study design

Literature Review.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDisucs and Scopus were searched for cross-culturally adapted translated studies through May 2022. The search strategy included the names of the 20 recommended PROMs from previous umbrella review along with the following terms: reliability, validity, responsiveness, psychometric properties and cross-cultural adaptation. Studies that presented a non-English language version of the PROM with evidence in at least one psychometric property to support its use were included. Two authors independently evaluated the studies for inclusion and independently extracted data.

Results

Nineteen PROMS had cross-culturally adapted and translated language versions. The KOOS, WOMAC, ACL-RSL, FAAM, ATRS, HOOS, OHS, MOXFQ and OKS were available in over 10 different language versions. Turkish, Dutch, German, Chinese and French were the most common languages, with each language having more than 10 PROMs with psychometric properties supporting their use. The WOMAC and KOOS were both available in 10 languages and had all three psychometric properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness supporting their use.

Conclusion

Nineteen of the 20 recommended instruments were available in multiple languages. The PROM most frequently cross-culturally adapted and translated were the KOOS and WOMAC. PROMs were most frequently cross-culturally adapted and translated into Turkish. International researchers and clinicians may use this information to more consistently implement PROMs with the most appropriate psychometric evidence available to support their use.

Level of evidence

3a.

Ankle fractures: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures and their measurement properties

PURPOSE

Ankle fractures are commonly occurring fractures, especially in the aging population, where they often present as fragility fractures. The disease burden and economic costs to the patient and society are considerable. Choosing accurate outcome measures for the evaluation of the management of ankle fractures in clinical trials facilitates better decision-making. This systematic review assesses the evidence for the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in the evaluation of adult patients with ankle fractures.

METHODS

Searches were performed in CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline and Google Scholar from the date of inception to July 2021. Studies that assessed the measurement properties of a PROM in an adult ankle fracture population were included. The included studies were assessed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology for systematic reviews of PROMs.

RESULTS

In total, 13 different PROMs were identified in the 23 included articles. Only the Ankle Fracture Outcome of Rehabilitation Measure (A-FORM) presented some evidence on content validity. The Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) displayed good evidence of construct validity and internal consistency. The measurement properties of the OMAS, LEFS and SEFAS were most studied.

CONCLUSION

The absence of validation studies covering all measurement properties of PROMs used in the adult ankle fracture population precludes the recommendation of a specific PROM to be used in the evaluation of this population. Further research should focus on validation of the content validity of the instruments used in patients with ankle fractures.

Structural validity of the foot and ankle outcome score for orthopaedic pathologies with Rasch Measurement Theory

BACKGROUND

The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is one of the most frequently used patient-reported outcome measures for foot and ankle conditions. The aim is to test the structural validity of the Finnish version of the FAOS using Rasch Measurement Theory.

METHODS

FAOS scores were obtained from 218 consecutive patients who received operative treatment for foot and ankle conditions. The FAOS data were fitted into the Rasch model and person separation index (PSI) calculated.

RESULTS

All the five subscales provided good coverage and targeting. Three subscales presented unidimensional structure. Thirty-eight of the 42 items had ordered response category thresholds. Three of the 42 items had differential item functioning towards gender. All subscales showed sufficient fit to the Rasch model. PSI ranged from 0.73 to 0.94 for the subscales.

CONCLUSIONS

The Finnish version of the FAOS shows acceptable structural validity for assessing complaints in orthopaedic foot and ankle patients.

Content validity and measurement properties of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale in patients with fractures of the lower extremities: a systematic review

Background

Fractures of lower extremities are common trauma-related injuries, and have major impact on patients' functional status. A frequently used Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) to evaluate patients’ functional status with lower extremity fractures is the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). However, there is no systematic review regarding content validity and other measurement properties of the LEFS in patients with lower extremity fractures.

Methods

A search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from inception until November 2020. Studies on development of the LEFS and/or the evaluation of one or more measurement properties of the LEFS in patients with lower extremity fractures were included, and independently assessed by two reviewers using COSMIN guidelines.

Results

Seven studies were included. Content validity of the LEFS was rated 'inconsistent', supported by very low quality of evidence. Structural validity was rated ‘insufficient’ supported by doubtful methodological quality. Internal consistency, measurement error, and responsiveness were rated 'indeterminate' supported by inadequate to adequate methodological quality. The methodological quality of the construct validity (hypotheses testing) assessment was rated as 'inadequate'.

Conclusion

The LEFS has several shortcomings, the lack of sufficient content validity being the most important one as content validity is considered the most crucial measurement property of a PROM according to the COSMIN guidelines. In interpreting the outcomes, one should therefore be aware that not all relevant aspects of physical functioning may be accounted for in the LEFS. Further validation in a well-designed content validity study is needed, including a clearly defined construct and patient involvement during the assessment of different aspects of content validity.

Plain English summary

Bone fractures of the lower extremities are a common injury. During rehabilitation it is essential to evaluate how patients experience their physical functioning, in order to monitor the progress and to optimize treatment. To measure physical functioning often questionnaires (also known as Patient Reported Outcome Measures) are used, such as the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). However, it is not clear if the LEFS actually measures physical function, and if its other measurement properties are sufficient for using this questionnaire among patients with fractures in the lower extremities. Therefore, we systematically searched and assessed scientific papers on the development of the LEFS (i.e., its ability to measure physical functioning), and papers on the performance of the LEFS with regard to several measurement properties to identify possible factors that may cause measurement errors. Hereby we have assessed the quality of the studies included. Our main finding was that the LEFS may not measure all aspects of physical function. Given the low quality of the papers included in our study, these findings come with considerable uncertainty. As the LEFS was developed more than 20 years ago, it may not represent physical functioning as we currently conceptualize this. Therefore, we recommend to perform a study in which the content of the LEFS will be evaluated by experts in the field as well as patients, and modify the questionnaire as needed.

Total Joint Replacement of Ankle, Knee, and Hip: How Do Patients Perceive Their Operative Outcomes at 10 Years?

Background:

Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are an integral part of national joint registers in measuring outcomes of operative procedures and improving quality of care. There is lack of literature comparing outcomes of total ankle replacement (TAR) to total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR). The aim of this study was to compare PROMs between TAR, TKR, and THR patient groups at 1, 5, and 10 years.

Methods:

Prospective PROMs from patients who underwent a TAR, TKR, or THR procedure between 2003 and 2010 were studied. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on their index joint replacement (hip, knee, or ankle). Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index), patient-reported outcome scores (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) and patient satisfaction scores (4-point Likert scale) at follow-up were compared between the 3 groups.

Results:

Data was available on 1797 THR, 2475 TKR, and 146 TAR patients. TAR patients were younger and reported fewer number of comorbidities. All 3 groups improved significantly from preoperative to 10 years for WOMAC scores (P < .001). For SF-36 scores at 10 years, the THR group (32.2% follow-up) scored the highest for 3 domains (P = .031) when compared to the TKR group (29.1% follow-up). All 3 groups had similar outcomes for 5 of 8 domains; P < .05). For patient satisfaction, the THR group reported overall 95.1% satisfaction followed by 89.8% for the TKR group and 83.9% in the TAR group (42.4% follow-up).

Conclusion:

In this cohort with diminishing numbers over the decade of time the patients were followed up we found that patients are equally happy with functional and general health outcomes from total ankle replacement vs other major lower extremity joint replacement. TAR surgery should be considered as a viable treatment option in this patient group.

Level of Evidence:

Level III, retrospective case series.

Validity of five foot and ankle specific electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) instruments in patients undergoing elective orthopedic foot or ankle surgery

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are widely accepted measures for evaluating outcomes of surgical interventions. As patient-reported information is stored in electronic health records, it is essential that there are valid electronic PRO (ePRO) instruments available for clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of electronic versions of five widely used foot and ankle specific PRO instruments.

METHODS

Altogether 111 consecutive elective foot/ankle surgery patients were invited face-to-face to participate in this study. Patients completed electronic versions of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), the modified Lower Extremity Function Scale (LEFS), the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), and the Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) on the day of elective foot and/or ankle surgery. Construct validity, coverage, and targeting of the scales were assessed.

RESULTS

Based on general and predefined thresholds, construct validity, coverage, and targeting of the ePRO versions of the FAAM, the FAOS, the MOXFQ, and the VAS-FA were acceptable. Major issues arose with score distribution and convergent validity of the modified LEFS instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

The ePRO versions of the FAAM, the FAOS, the MOXFQ, and the VAS-FA provide valid scores for foot and ankle patients. However, our findings do not support the use of the modified LEFS as an electronic outcome measure for patients with orthopedic foot and/or ankle pathologies.

Validation of Remote Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Using Patients' Smartphones

Backgroud

The purpose of this study was to examine the between-mode equivalence and the relative efficiency of the 2 available modes of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection: a web-enabled touch screen tablet and a smartphone in a sample of patients who underwent foot and ankle orthopedic surgery.

Methods

A total of 136 patients who visited the clinic after foot/ankle surgery participated in the study. All patients completed the PRO questionnaire set using tablets at the hospital. After 24 hours of completing the first PRO questionnaire, the patients completed the same PRO questionnaire at home using their personal smartphones. The outcomes were statistically compared, and the patients' preferences were surveyed.

Results

The intraclass correlation coefficients for comparing the results of PRO measurements between the 2 modes were 0.970 for the visual analog scale, 0.952 for the Foot Function Index, 0.959 for the foot and ankle outcome scale, and 0.957 for the patient's satisfaction. Sixty-eight participants (58.6%) responded that they were able to answer the questionnaires with more honesty at home using their smartphones. Regarding the mode, 60 participants (48.1%) responded that they have no preference between the devices.

Conclusions

The results of this study showed the equivalence of the 2 modes of PRO data collection: web-enabled touch screen tablets and smartphones. Smartphones may be the preferred mode of PRO measurement, due to their easy accessibility, increased privacy, and the patients' increased honesty in answering questionnaires.

Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery

Purpose

To compare the performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), pain interference (PIF), and depression computer adaptive tests (CAT) relative to legacy instruments in patients undergoing meniscal surgery.

Methods

Patients scheduled to undergo meniscal surgery completed legacy knee function PROMs (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscores), Marx Activity Rating Scale (MARS), Veterans-Rand 12 (VR12), Short Form 12 (SF12), and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) alongside PROMIS PF, PIF, and Depression preoperatively. Spearman rank correlations were calculated, and score distributions were examined for floor and ceiling effects.

Results

152 patients (46.6 ± 14.9 years, 67.1% male) completed PROMs for appropriate inclusion. PROMIS PF yielded high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC and KOOS subscales (r = 0.61 to 0.73), demonstrating similar performance to the IKDC. PROMIS PIF demonstrated moderately high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC, KOOS subscales, VR-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), and SF12 PCS (r = 0.62 to 0.71), performing comparably to KOOS Pain (r = 0.55 to 0.92). PROMIS Depression demonstrated moderate to high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacies (r = 0.46 to 0.66). Significant ceiling effects were observed for MARS (n = 29, 18.8%), and significant floor effects were exhibited by PROMIS Depression (n = 38, 25%) and MARS (n = 27, 17.6%).

Conclusion

The PROMIS PF, PIF CAT, and Depression instruments exhibit comparable performance profiles relative to legacy knee PROMs. PROMIS PF and PIF demonstrated no floor and ceiling effects, whereas PROMIS Depression exhibited a significant relative floor effect. PROMIS PF and PIF may be appropriately used to establish functional baselines preoperatively.

Level of Evidence

IV, diagnostic case series.