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 unvali date d scoring system , is the most commonly used scoring system in this review .
This review presents data about commonly used patient reported outcomes systems in foot and ankle surgery .
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 vali date d , have floor/ceiling effects , and so on .
Clinical Interpretation of a Lower-Extremity Functional Scale–Derived Computerized Adaptive Test
Background : The increasing use of computerized adaptive tests ( CATs ) to generate outcome measures during rehabilitation has prompted questions concerning score interpretation . Objective : The purpose of this study was to describe meaningful interpretations of functional status ( FS ) outcome measures estimated with a body part – specific CAT developed from the Lower-Extremity Functional Scale ( LEFS ) . Design : This investigation was a prospect i ve cohort study of 8,714 people who had hip impairments and were receiving physical therapy in 257 outpatient clinics in 31 states ( United States ) between January 2005 and June 2007 . Methods : Four approaches were used to clinical ly interpret outcome data . First , the st and ard error of the estimate was used to construct the 90 % confidence interval for each CAT-generated score estimate . Second , percentile ranks were applied to FS scores . Third , 2 threshold approaches were used to define individual subject – level change : statistically reliable change and clinical ly important change . The fourth approach was a functional staging method . Results : The precision of a single score was estimated from the FS score ±4 . On the basis of the score distribution , 25th , 50th , and 75th percentile ranks corresponded to intake FS scores of 40 , 48 , and 59 and discharge FS scores of 50 , 61 , and 75 , respectively . The reliable change index supported the conclusion that changes in FS scores of 7 or more units represented statistically reliable change , and receiver operating characteristic analyses supported the conclusion that changes in FS scores of 6 or more units represented minimal clinical ly important improvement . Participants were classified into 5 hierarchical levels of FS using a functional staging method . Limitations : Because this study was a secondary analysis of prospect ively collected data via a proprietary data base management company , generalizability of results may be limited to participating clinics . Conclusions : The results demonstrated how outcome measures generated from the hip LEFS CAT can be interpreted to improve clinical meaning . This finding might facilitate the use of patient-reported outcomes by clinicians during rehabilitation services
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 unvali date d scoring system , is the most commonly used scoring system in this review .
This review presents data about commonly used patient reported outcomes systems in foot and ankle surgery .
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 vali date d , have floor/ceiling effects , and so on .