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 .
Introducing levels of evidence to the journal.
Orthopaedic surgeons have always based their clinical care on evidence . Surgeons use evidence to make decisions tailored to an individual patient 's needs and circumstances . The primary sources of evidence for clinicians are studies published in the medical and surgical literature , such as The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery . In June 2000 , The Journal introduced the quarterly Evidence -Based Orthopaedics section 1 . This section introduces orthopaedic surgeons to recent r and omized trials relevant to the practice of orthopaedic surgery published in forty-two journals other than The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery . Structured abstract s of these studies are
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 .