More evidence was available for the measurement properties of the FAOS and the FAAM , but overall evidence supporting all measurement properties is not yet sufficient .
Purpose In the foot and ankle literature , a wide range of patient-reported outcome measures ( PROMs ) is used , however , consensus as to which PROMs are preferred is lacking .
Selection of a PROM is among other reasons , often based on measurement properties without considering the method ological quality of the studies that evaluate these measurement properties .
The aim of current study was first to identify the most frequently used foot and ankle-specific PROMs in recent orthopaedic foot and ankle literature , and second to conduct a systematic review to synthesize and critically appraise the measurement properties of these PROMS .
Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To conduct a pilot study to compare the frequency of errors that accompany single vs. double data extraction , compare the estimate of treatment effect derived from these methods , and compare the time requirements for these methods . METHODS Review ers were r and omized to the role of data extractor or data verifier , and were blind to the study hypothesis . The frequency of errors associated with each method of data extraction was compared using the McNemar test . The data set for each method was used to calculate an efficacy estimate by each method , using st and ard meta-analytic techniques . The time requirement for each method was compared using a paired t-test . RESULTS Single data extraction result ed in more errors than double data extraction ( relative difference : 21.7 % , P = .019 ) . There was no substantial difference between methods in effect estimates for most outcomes . The average time spent for single data extraction  was less than the average time for double data extraction ( relative difference : 36.1 % , P = .003 ) . CONCLUSION In the case that single data extraction is used in systematic review s , review ers and readers need to be mindful of the possibility for more errors and the potential impact these errors may have on effect estimates
More evidence was available for the measurement properties of the FAOS and the FAAM , but overall evidence supporting all measurement properties is not yet sufficient .
Purpose In the foot and ankle literature , a wide range of patient-reported outcome measures ( PROMs ) is used , however , consensus as to which PROMs are preferred is lacking .
Selection of a PROM is among other reasons , often based on measurement properties without considering the method ological quality of the studies that evaluate these measurement properties .
The aim of current study was first to identify the most frequently used foot and ankle-specific PROMs in recent orthopaedic foot and ankle literature , and second to conduct a systematic review to synthesize and critically appraise the measurement properties of these PROMS .