A considerable variety of outcome measurement tools are used in the foot and ankle clinical literature , with a small proportion used consistently .
The AOFAS scales continue to be used at a high rate relative to other scales that have been vali date d. Data from the present study underscore the need for a paradigm shift toward the use of consistent , valid , and reliable outcome measures for studies of foot and ankle procedures and disorders .
It is not clear which existing vali date d outcome instruments will emerge as widely used and clinical ly meaningful .
BACKGROUND In the orthopaedic literature , there is a wide range of clinical outcome measurement tools that have been used in evaluating foot and ankle procedures , disorders , and outcomes , with no broadly accepted consensus as to which tools are preferred .
The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of the various outcome instruments used in the foot and ankle literature , and to identify trends for use of these instruments over time .
Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.
In recent years quality of life instruments have been featured as primary outcomes in many r and omized trials . One of the challenges facing the investigator using such measures is determining the significance of any differences observed , and communicating that significance to clinicians who will be applying the trial results . We have developed an approach to elucidating the significance of changes in score in quality of life instruments by comparing them to global ratings of change . Using this approach we have established a plausible range within which the minimal clinical ly important difference ( MCID ) falls . In three studies in which instruments measuring  dyspnea , fatigue , and emotional function in patients with chronic heart and lung disease were applied the MCID was represented by mean change in score of approximately 0.5 per item , when responses were presented on a seven point Likert scale . Furthermore , we have established ranges for changes in question naire scores that correspond to moderate and large changes in the domains of interest . This information will be useful in interpreting question naire scores , both in individuals and in groups of patients participating in controlled trials , and in the planning of new trials
A considerable variety of outcome measurement tools are used in the foot and ankle clinical literature , with a small proportion used consistently .
The AOFAS scales continue to be used at a high rate relative to other scales that have been vali date d. Data from the present study underscore the need for a paradigm shift toward the use of consistent , valid , and reliable outcome measures for studies of foot and ankle procedures and disorders .
It is not clear which existing vali date d outcome instruments will emerge as widely used and clinical ly meaningful .
BACKGROUND In the orthopaedic literature , there is a wide range of clinical outcome measurement tools that have been used in evaluating foot and ankle procedures , disorders , and outcomes , with no broadly accepted consensus as to which tools are preferred .
The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and distribution of the various outcome instruments used in the foot and ankle literature , and to identify trends for use of these instruments over time .