Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 8/2017

17.03.2017

A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases

verfasst von: Yuanxi Jia, Hsiaomin Huang, Joel J. Gagnier

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To identify currently available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in patients with foot or ankle diseases; and to critically appraise, compare and synthesize the psychometric evidence for the identified PROMs.

Methods

Literature searches were performed in Medline and EMBASE from their inception to January 25th, 2016. Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist. The final rating of the methodological quality of each study for each property was the lowest rating among the items within that property. The psychometric evidence of the properties investigated in the included articles was assessed using the quality criteria established by Terwee et al. The methodological quality ratings and psychometric evidence assessments were synthesized using the method first proposed by Schellingerhout et al.

Results

In total, 3077 articles were identified by the literature search, from which 115 studies investigating 50 PRO instruments were included in the review process. The Foot Function Index (FFI) was the most explored instrument, while the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) demonstrated the best properties.

Conclusion

Most PROMs on foot and ankle diseases have limited evidence for their psychometric properties. The MOXFQ, with the highest overall ratings, could be a useful PROM for evaluating patients with foot or ankle diseases, based on current available evidence. More research is needed to improve the quality of the standards used to assess PROMs and the studies making these assessments.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Menz, H. B., & Lord, S. R. (2001). Foot pain impairs balance and functional ability in community-dwelling older people. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 91(5), 222–229.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Tinetti, M. E., Speechley, M., & Ginter, S. F. (1988). Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. The New England Journal of Medicine, 319(26), 1701–1707.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Benvenuti, F., Ferrucci, L., Guralnik, J. M., Gangemi, S., & Baroni, A. (1995). Foot pain and disability in older persons: an epidemiologic survey. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 43(5), 479–484.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Spahn, G., Schiele, R., Hell, A. K., Klinger, H. M., Jung, R., & Langlotz, A. (2004). The prevalence of pain and deformities in the feet of adolescents. Results of a cross-sectional study. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb, 142(4), 389–396.PubMedCrossRef
5.
van Wyngarden, T. M. (1997). The painful foot, Part I: Common forefoot deformities. American Family Physician, 55(5), 1866–1876.PubMed
6.
Lardenoye, S., Theunissen, E., Cleffken, B., Brink, P. R., de Bie, R. A., & Poeze, M. (2012). The effect of taping versus semi-rigid bracing on patient outcome and satisfaction in ankle sprains: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 13, 81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Frey, C. (2000). Foot health and shoewear for women. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 372, 32–44.CrossRef
8.
Garrow, A. P., Silman, A. J., & Macfarlane, G. J. (2004). The Cheshire Foot Pain and Disability Survey: a population survey assessing prevalence and associations. Pain, 110(1–2), 378–384.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Garratt, A., Schmidt, L., Mackintosh, A., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. Bmj, 324(7351), 1417.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Eechaute, C., Vaes P. F., Van Aerschot, L., Asman, S., & Duquet, W. (2007). The clinimetric qualities of patient-assessed instruments for measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disorders, 8, 6.CrossRef
11.
van der Leeden, M., Terwee, C. B., Rosenbaum, D., Turner, D., Woodburn, J., Dekker, J., et al. (2008). A systematic review of instruments measuring foot function, foot pain, and foot-related disability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(9), 1257–1269.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hegedus, E. J., McDonough, S. M., Bleakley, C., Baxter, D., & Cook, C. E. (2015). Clinician-friendly lower extremity physical performance tests in athletes: a systematic review of measurement properties and correlation with injury. Part 2–the tests for the hip, thigh, foot and ankle including the star excursion balance test. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(10), 649–656.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Pike, S., Lannin, N. A., Cusick, A., Wales, K., Turner-Stokes, L., & Ashford, S. (2015). A systematic review protocol to evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of function within adult neuro-rehabilitation. Systematic Reviews, 4, 86.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., Riphagen, I., et al. (2009). Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(3), 313–333.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Conijn, A. P., Jens, S., Terwee, C. B., Breek, J. C., & Koelemay, M. J. (2015). Assessing the quality of available patient reported outcome measures for intermittent claudication: a systematic review using the COSMIN checklist. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 49(3), 316–334.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Evans, K., Spiby, H., & Morrell, C. J. (2015). A psychometric systematic review of self-report instruments to identify anxiety in pregnancy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(9), 1986–2001.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Wong, C. K., Lang, B. H., & Lam, C. L. (2016). A systematic review of quality of thyroid-specific health-related quality of life instruments recommends ThyPRO for patients with benign thyroid diseases. J Clin Epidemiol, 78, 63–72PubMedCrossRef
20.
Wong, C. K., Chen, J., Yu, C. L., Sham, M., & Lam, C. L. (2015). Systematic review recommends the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer colorectal cancer-specific module for measuring quality of life in colorectal cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(3), 266–278.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1115–1123.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. ( 2009). The COSMIN checklist manual. Amsterdam: VU University Medical Centre.
23.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Schellingerhout, J. M., Verhagen, A. P., Heymans, M. W., Koes, B. W., de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2012). Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 659–670.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Huang, H., Grant, J. A., Miller, B. S., Mirza, F. M., & Gagnier, J. J. (2015). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with rotator cuff disease. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(10), 2572–2582.PubMedCrossRef
26.
van Tulder, M., Furlan, A., Bombardier, C., & Bouter, L. (2003). Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 28(12), 1290–1299.
27.
Schellingerhout, J. M., Verhagen, A. P., Heymans, M. W., Koes, B. W., Henrica, C., & Terwee, C. B. (2012). Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 659–670.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Mousavian, A., Ebrahimzadeh, M. H., Birjandinejad, A., Omidi-Kashani, F., & Kachooei, A. R. (2015). Translation and cultural adaptation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) into Persian language. Foot, 25(4), 224–227.CrossRef
29.
Garcés, J. B. G., Winson, I., Goldhahn, S., Castro, M. D., Swords, M. P., Grujic, L., et al. (2015). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Spanish Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in patients with foot or ankle surgery. Foot and Ankle Surgery.
30.
Dawson, J., Boller, I., Doll, H., Lavis, G., Sharp, R., Cooke, P., et al. (2014). Minimally important change was estimated for the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire after foot/ankle surgery. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(6), 697–705.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Morley, D., Jenkinson, C., Doll, H., Lavis, G., Sharp, R., Cooke, P., et al. (2013). The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ): Development and validation of a summary index score. Bone Joint Research, 2(4), 66–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Dawson, J., Boller, I., Doll, H., Lavis, G., Sharp, R., Cooke, P., et al. (2012). Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 94(2), 215–221.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Maher, A. J., & Kilmartin, T. E. (2012). An analysis of Euroqol EQ-5D and Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire scores six months following podiatric surgery. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 5(1), 17.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Dawson, J., Boller, I., Doll, H., Lavis, G., Sharp, R., Cooke, P., et al. (2011). The MOXFQ patient-reported questionnaire: assessment of data quality, reliability and validity in relation to foot and ankle surgery. Foot, 21(2), 92–102.CrossRef
35.
Dawson, J., Coffey, J., Doll, H., Lavis, G., Cooke, P., Herron, M., et al. (2006). A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery: Validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus. Quality of Life Research, 15(7), 1211–1222.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Marinozzi, A., Martinelli, N., Panasci, M., Cancilleri, F., Franceschetti, E., Vincenzi, B., et al. (2009). Italian translation of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire, with re-assessment of reliability and validity. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 923–927.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Dawson, J., Doll, H., Coffey, J., & Jenkinson, C. (2007). Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 15(8), 918–931.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Van Der Zwaard, B. C., Terwee, C. B., Roddy, E., Terluin, B., Van Der Horst, H. E., & Elders, P. J. (2014). Evaluation of the measurement properties of the Manchester foot pain and disability index. BMC Musculoskelet Disorders, 15(1).
39.
Menz, H. B., Auhl, M., Ristevski, S., Frescos, N., & Munteanu, S. E. (2014). Comparison of the responsiveness of the foot health status questionnaire and the Manchester foot pain and disability index in older people. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(158), 014–0158.
40.
Gijon-Nogueron, G., Ndosi, M., Luque-Suarez, A., Alcacer-Pitarch, B., Munuera, P. V., Garrow, A., et al. (2014). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index into Spanish. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 571–579.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Pedersen, C. K., Danneskiold-Samsoe, B., Garrow, A. P., Waehrens, E. E., Bliddal, H., Christensen, R., et al. (2013). Development of a Danish language version of the manchester foot pain and disability index: Reproducibility and construct validity testing. Pain Research Treatment, 284903(10), 6.
42.
Roddy, E., Muller, S., & Thomas, E. (2009). Defining disabling foot pain in older adults: Further examination of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. Rheumatology, 48(8), 992–996.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Kaoulla, P., Frescos, N., & Menz, H. B. (2008). Development and validation of a Greek language version of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6(39), 1477–7525.
44.
Menz, H. B., Tiedemann, A., Kwan, M. M. S., Plumb, K., & Lord, S. R. (2006). Foot pain in community-dwelling older people: An evaluation of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index. Rheumatology, 45(7), 863–867.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Garrow, A. P., Papageorgiou, A. C., Silman, A. J., Thomas, E., Jayson, M. I., & Macfarlane, G. J. (2000). Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess disabling foot pain. Pain, 85(1–2), 107–113.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Pinsker, E., Inrig, T., Daniels, T., Warmington, K., & Beaton, D. E. (2015). Reliability and validity of 6 measures of pain, function, and disability for ankle arthroplasty and arthrodesis. Foot & Ankle International, 36(6), 617–625.CrossRef
47.
Budiman-Mak, E., Conrad, K. J., & Roach, K. E. (1991). The Foot Function Index: A measure of foot pain and disability. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44(6), 561–570.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Kuyvenhoven, M. M., Gorter, K., Zuithoff, P., Zuithoff, P., Budiman-Mak, E., Conrad, K. J., et al. (2002). The foot function index with verbal rating scales (FFI-5pt): A clinimetric evaluation and comparison with the original FFI. The Journal of Rheumatology, 29(5), 1023–1028.PubMed
49.
Agel, J., Beskin, J. L., Brage, M., Guyton, G. P., Kadel, N. J., Saltzman, C. L., et al. (2005). Reliability of the Foot Function Index: A report of the AOFAS Outcomes Committee. Foot & Ankle International, 26(11), 962–967.
50.
SooHoo, N. F., Samimi, D. B., Vyas, R. M., Botzler, T., & Botzler, T. (2006). Evaluation of the validity of the Foot Function Index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Foot & Ankle International, 27(1), 38–42.CrossRef
51.
SooHoo, N. F., Vyas, R., & Samimi, D. (2006). Responsiveness of the foot function index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot & Ankle International, 27(11), 930–934.CrossRef
52.
Naal, F. D., Impellizzeri, F. M., Huber, M., & Rippstein, P. F. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index for use in German-speaking patients with foot complaints. Foot & Ankle International, 29(12), 1222–1228.CrossRef
53.
Wu, S. H., Liang, H. W., & Hou, W. H. (2008). Reliability and validity of the Taiwan Chinese version of the Foot Function Index. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 107(2), 111–118.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Pourtier-Piotte, C., Pereira, B., Soubrier, M., Thomas, E., Gerbaud, L., & Coudeyre, E. (2015). French validation of the Foot Function Index (FFI). Annals of Physical Rehabilitation Medicine, 58(5), 276–282.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Madeley, N. J., Wing, K. J., Topliss, C., Penner, M. J., Glazebrook, M. A., & Younger, A. S. (2012). Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis. Foot & Ankle International, 33(1), 57–63.CrossRef
56.
Paez-Moguer, J., Budiman-Mak, E., & Cuesta-Vargas, A. I. (2014). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Foot Function Index to Spanish. Foot and Ankle Surgery, 20(1), 34–39.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Martinelli, N., Scotto, G. M., Sartorelli, E., Bonifacini, C., Bianchi, A., & Malerba, F. (2014). Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Foot Function Index in patients with foot and ankle diseases. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 277–284.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Jorgensen, J. E., Andreasen, J., & Rathleff, M. S. (2015). Translation and validation of the Danish Foot Function Index (FFI-DK). Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 25(4), 4.CrossRef
59.
Venditto, T., Tognolo, L., Rizzo, R. S., Iannuccelli, C., Di Sante, L., Trevisan, M., et al (2015). 17-Italian Foot Function Index with numerical rating scale: Development, reliability, and validity of a modified version of the original Foot Function Index. Foot, 25(1), 12–18.CrossRef
60.
Saag, K. G., Saltzman, C. L., Brown, C. K., & Budiman-Mak, E. (1996). The Foot Function Index for measuring rheumatoid arthritis pain: Evaluating side-to-side reliability. Foot & Ankle International, 17(8), 506–510.CrossRef
61.
Goldstein, C. L., Schemitsch, E., Bhandari, M., Mathew, G., & Petrisor, B. A. (2010). Comparison of different outcome instruments following foot and ankle trauma. Foot & Ankle International, 31(12), 1075–1080.CrossRef
62.
Martin, R. L., Irrgang, J. J., Burdett, R. G., Conti, S. F., & Van Swearingen, J. M. (2005). Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot & Ankle International, 26(11), 968–983.
63.
Carcia, C. R., Martin, R. l., & Drouin, J. M. (2008). Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. Journal of Athletic Training, 43(2), 179–183.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
Martin, R. L., Hutt, D. M., & Wukich, D. K. (2009). Validity of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) in Diabetes Mellitus. Foot & Ankle International, 30(4), 297–302.CrossRef
65.
Mazaheri, M., Salavati, M., Negahban, H., Sohani, S. M., Taghizadeh, F., Feizi, A., et al. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Persian version of Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) to measure functional limitations in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 18(6), 755–759.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Kivlan, B. R., Martin, R. l., & Wukich, D. K. (2011). Responsiveness of the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) in individuals with diabetes. Foot, 21(2), 84–87.CrossRef
67.
Arunakul, M., Arunakul, P., Suesiritumrong, C., Angthong, C., & Chernchujit, B. (2015). Validity and reliability of thai version of the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) subjective form. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 98(6), 561–567.PubMed
68.
Weel, H., Zwiers, R., Azim, D., Sierevelt, I. N., Haverkamp, D., van Dijk, C. N., et al. (2014). Validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 25, 25.
69.
Uematsu, D., Suzuki, H., Sasaki, S., Nagano, Y., Shinozuka, N., Sunagawa, N., et al. (2015). Evidence of validity for the Japanese version of the foot and ankle ability measure. Journal of Athletic Training, 50(1), 65–70.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
Roos, E. M., Brandsson, S., & Karlsson, J. (2001). Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot & Ankle International, 22(10), 788–794.CrossRef
71.
Karatepe, A. G., Gunaydin, R., Kaya, T., Karlibas, U., & Ozbek, G. (2009). Validation of the Turkish version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Rheumatology International, 30(2), 169–173.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Negahban, H., Mazaheri, M., Salavati, M., Sohani, S. M., Askari, M., Fanian, H., et al. (2010). Reliability and validity of the foot and ankle outcome score: A validation study from Iran. Clinical Rheumatology, 29(5), 479–486.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Golightly, Y. M., DeVellis, R. F., Roos, E. M., Lohmander, L. S., Hannan, M. T., Nelson, A. E., et al. (2011). Psychometric properties of the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) in a community-based osteoarthritis study. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 19, S153.CrossRef
74.
van den Akker-Scheek, I., Seldentuis, A., Reininga, I. H. F., & Stevens, M. (2013). Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14(183), 1471–2474.
75.
Lee, K. M., Chung, C. Y., Kwon, S. S., Sung, K. H., Lee, S. Y., Won, S. H., et al. (2013). Transcultural adaptation and testing psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Clinical Rheumatology, 32(10), 1443–1450.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Mani, S. B., Brown, H. C., Nair, P., Chen, L., Do, H. T., Lyman, S., et al. (2013). Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score in adult acquired flatfoot deformity. Foot & Ankle International, 34(8), 1140–1146.CrossRef
77.
van Bergen, C. J., Sierevelt, I. N., Hoogervorst, P., Waizy, H., van Dijk, C. N., & Becher, C. (2014). Translation and validation of the German version of the foot and ankle outcome score. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 134(7), 897–901.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Golightly, Y. M., Devellis, R. F., Nelson, A. E., Hannan, M. T., Lohmander, L. S., Renner, J. B., et al. (2014). Psychometric properties of the foot and ankle outcome score in a community-based study of adults with and without osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care and Research, 66(3), 395–403.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
79.
Angthong, C. (2015). Validity and reliability of Thai version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score in patients with arthritis of the foot and ankle. Foot and Ankle Surgery.
80.
Sierevelt, I. N., Beimers, L., van Bergen, C. J. A., Haverkamp, D., Terwee, C. B., & Kerkhoffs, G. M. M. J. (2015). Validation of the Dutch language version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 23(8), 2413–2419.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Sierevelt, I. N., van Eekeren, I. C., Haverkamp, D., Reilingh, M. L., Terwee, C. B., & Kerkhoffs, G. M. (2015). Evaluation of the Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS): Responsiveness and Minimally Important Change. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 24, 24.
82.
Mani, S. B., Do, H., Vulcano, E., Hogan, M. V., Lyman, S., Deland, J. T., et al. (2015). Evaluation of the foot and ankle outcome score in patients with osteoarthritis of the ankle. Bone Joint J, 97, 662–667.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Chen, L., Lyman, S., Do, H., Karlsson, J., Adam, S. P., Young, E., et al. (2012). Validation of foot and ankle outcome score for hallux valgus. Foot & Ankle International, 33(12), 1145–1155.CrossRef
84.
Cuesta-Vargas, A., Bennett, P., Jimenez-Cebrian, A. M., & Labajos-Manzanares, M. T. (2013). The psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1739–1743.PubMedCrossRef
85.
Bennett, P. J., Patterson, C., Wearing, S., & Baglioni, T. (1998). Development and validation of a questionnaire designed to measure foot-health status. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 88(9), 419–428.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Hiller, C. E., Refshauge, K. M., Bundy, A. C., Herbert, R. D., & Kilbreath, S. L. (2006). The Cumberland ankle instability tool: A report of validity and reliability testing. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87(9), 1235–1241.PubMedCrossRef
87.
De Noronha, M., Refshauge, K. M., Kilbreath, S. L., & Figueiredo, V. G. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT). Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(26), 1959–1965.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Cruz-Diaz, D., Hita-Contreras, F., Lomas-Vega, R., Osuna-Perez, M. C., & Martinez-Amat, A. (2013). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT): An instrument to assess unilateral chronic ankle instability. Clinical Rheumatology, 32(1), 91–98.PubMedCrossRef
89.
Rodriguez-Fernandez, A. L., Rebollo-Roldan, J., Jimenez-Rejano, J. J., & Gueita-Rodriguez, J. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(20), 1888–1894.PubMedCrossRef
90.
Ko, J., Rosen, A. B., & Brown, C. N. (2015). Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Korean Version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool. International Journal Sports Physical Therapy, 10(7), 1007–1014.
91.
Wang, Y., He, Z., Lei, L., Lin, D., Li, Y., Wang, G., et al. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire in patients with skeletal muscle injury of the upper or lower extremities. BMC Musculoskelet Disorders, 16, 161CrossRef
92.
Domsic, R. T., & Saltzman, C. L. (1998). Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot & Ankle International, 19(7), 466–471.CrossRef
93.
McPhail, S. M., Williams, C. M., Schuetz, M., Baxter, B., Tonks, P., & Haines, T. P. (2014). Development and validation of the ankle fracture outcome of rehabilitation measure (A-FORM). The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 44(7), 488–499.PubMedCrossRef
94.
Andre, M., Hagelberg, S., & Stenstrom, C. H. (2004). The juvenile arthritis foot disability index: Development and evaluation of measurement properties. The Journal of Rheumatology, 31(12), 2488–2493.PubMed
95.
Esbjörnsson, A. C., Iversen, M. D., Broström, E. W., Hagelberg, S., & André, M. (2013). PReS-FINAL-2024: Responsiveness of the juvenile arthritis foot disability index. Pediatric Rheumatology, 11, P37PubMedCentralCrossRef
96.
Morris, C., Doll, H. A., Wainwright, A., Theologis, T., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2008). The Oxford ankle foot questionnaire for children: Scaling, reliability and validity. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 90(11), 1451–1456.PubMedCrossRef
97.
Morris, C., Doll, H., Davies, N., Wainwright, A., Theologis, T., Willett, K., et al. (2009). The Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire for children: Responsiveness and longitudinal validity. Quality of Life Research, 18(10), 1367–1376.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Martinkevich, P., Moller-Madsen, B., Gottliebsen, M., Kjeldgaard, P. L., & Rahbek, O. (2015). Validation of the translated Oxford ankle foot questionnaire in 82 Danish children aged between five and 16 years. Bone Joint J, 97, 420–426.PubMedCrossRef
99.
Martinelli, N., Romeo, G., Bonifacini, C., Viganò, M., Bianchi, A., & Malerba, F. (2016). Validation of the Italian version of the Oxford Ankle Foot Questionnaire for children. Quality of Life Research, 25(1), 117–123.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Niki, H., Tatsunami, S., Haraguchi, N., Aoki, T., Okuda, R., Suda, Y., et al. (2013). Validity and reliability of a self-administered foot evaluation questionnaire (SAFE-Q). Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 18(2), 298–320.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
101.
Yano, K., Ikari, K., Ochi, K., Ishida, O., Sakuma, Y., Yoshida, S., et al. (2015). Validity and responsiveness of a self-administered foot evaluation questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis. Modern Rheumatology, 25(3), 358–361.PubMedCrossRef
102.
Coster, M. C., Karlsson, M. K., Nilsson, J.-A., & Carlsson, A. K. E. (2012). Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). Acta Orthopaedica, 83(2), 197–203.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
103.
Coster, M. C., Rosengren, B. E., Bremander, A., Brudin, L., & Karlsson, M. K. (2014). Comparison of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS). Foot & Ankle International, 35(10), 1031–1036.CrossRef
104.
Coster, M. C., Bremander, A., Rosengren, B. E., Magnusson, H., Carlsson, A., & Karlsson, M. K. (2014). Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders. Acta Orthopaedica, 85(2), 187–194.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
105.
Rowan, K. (2001). The development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of chronic foot pain: The ROwan Foot Pain Assessment Questionnaire (ROFPAQ). Foot & Ankle International, 22(10), 795–809.CrossRef
106.
Woodburn, J., Vliet, V. T. P., van der Leeden, M., & Steultjens, M. P. M. (2011). Rasch analysis of Dutch-translated version of the Foot Impact Scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 50(7), 1315–1319.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Woodburn, J., Turner, D. E., Rosenbaum, D., Balint, G., Korda, J., Ormos, G., et al. (2012). Adaptation and crosscultural validation of the Foot Impact Scale for Rheumatoid Arthritis using Rasch analysis. Arthritis Care and Research, 64(7), 986–992.PubMed
108.
Abetz, L., Sutton, M., Brady, L., McNulty, P., & Gagnon, D. D. (2002). The Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale (DFS): A quality of life instrument for use in clinical trials. Practical Diabetes International, 19(6), 167–175.CrossRef
109.
Bann, C. M., Fehnel, S. E., & Gagnon, D. D. (2003). Development and validation of the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-short form (DFS-SF). PharmacoEconomics, 21(17), 1277–1290.PubMedCrossRef
110.
Hui, L. F., Yee-Tak, F. D., Yam, M., & Yuk Ip, W. (2008). Translation and validation of the Chinese diabetic foot ulcer scale—short form. Patient, 1(2), 137–145.PubMedCrossRef
111.
Chin, Y. F., & Huang, T. T. (2013). Development and validation of a diabetes foot self-care behavior scale. The Journal of Nursing Research: JNR, 21(1), 19–25.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Pena, F., Agel, J., & Coetzee, J. C. (2007). Comparison of the MFA to the AOFAS outcome tool in a population undergoing total ankle replacement. Foot & Ankle International, 28(7), 788–793.CrossRef
113.
Ibrahim, T., Beiri, A., Azzabi, M., Best, A. J., Taylor, G. J., & Menon, D. K. (2007). Reliability and validity of the subjective component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society clinical rating scales. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 46(2), 65–74.PubMedCrossRef
114.
Baumhauer, J. F., Nawoczenski, D. A., DiGiovanni, B. F., & Wilding, G. E. (2006). Reliability and validity of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Clinical Rating Scale: A pilot study for the hallux and lesser toes. Foot & Ankle International, 27(12), 1014–1019.CrossRef
115.
Hale, S. A., & Hertel, J. (2005). Reliability and sensitivity of the foot and ankle disability index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. Journal of Athletic Training, 40(1), 35–40.PubMedPubMedCentral
116.
Niki, H., Aoki, H., Inokuchi, S., Ozeki, S., Kinoshita, M., Kura, H., et al. (2005). Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders II: interclinician and intraclinician reliability and validity of the newly established standard rating scales and Japanese Orthopaedic Association rating scale. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 10(5), 466–474.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
117.
Dhawan, V., Spratt, K. F., Pinzur, M. S., Baumhauer, J., Rudicel, S., & Saltzman, C. L. (2005). Reliability of AOFAS diabetic foot questionnaire in Charcot arthropathy: stability, internal consistency, and measurable difference. Foot & Ankle International, 26(9), 717–731.CrossRef
118.
Kim, J. B., Kim, J. K., Seo, S. G., & Lee, D. Y. (2015). Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Korean version of American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle questionnaire. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 54(1), 46–50.PubMedCrossRef
119.
Boszczyk, A., Blonski, M., & Pomianowski, S. (2015). Translation, cultural adaptation and validation of Polish version of foot and ankle outcomes questionnaire. Ortopedia, Traumatologia, Rehabilitacja, 17(2), 175–187.PubMedCrossRef
120.
Morssinkhof, M. L., Wang, O., James, L., van der Heide, H. J. L., & Winson, I. G. (2013). Development and validation of the Sports Athlete Foot and Ankle Score: An instrument for sports-related ankle injuries. Foot and Ankle Surgery, 19(3), 162–167.PubMedCrossRef
121.
Sibaud, V., Dalenc, F., Chevreau, C., Roché, H., Delord, J. P., Mourey, L., et al. (2011). HFS-14, a specific quality of life scale developed for patients suffering from hand-foot syndrome. Melanoma Research, 21, e12–e13.CrossRef
122.
Mikoshiba, N., Yamamoto-Mitani, N., Sato, K., Asaoka, Y., Ohki, T., Ohata, M., et al. (2015). Validation of the Japanese version of HFS-14, a disease-specific quality of life scale for patients suffering from hand-foot syndrome. Supportive Care in Cancer, 23(9), 2739–2745.PubMedCrossRef
123.
Vileikyte, L., Peyrot, M., Bundy, C., Rubin, R. R., Leventhal, H., Mora, P., et al. (2003). The development and validation of a neuropathy- and foot ulcer-specific quality of life instrument. Diabetes Care, 26(9), 2549–2555.PubMedCrossRef
124.
Xavier, A. T., Foss, M. C., Marques Junior, W., dos Santos, C. B., Onofre, P. T., & Pace, A. E. (2011). Cultural adaptation and validation of the Neuropathy - and Foot Ulcer - Specific Quality of Life instrument (NeuroQol) for Brazilian Portuguese - Phase 1. Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 19(6), 1352–1361.PubMedCrossRef
125.
Nair, A. V., Shamsuddin, K., John, P. S., Hamalainen, J. A., & Kurien, M. A. (2015). Correlation of visual analogue scale foot and ankle (VAS-FA) to AOFAS score in malleolar fractures using Indian language questionnare. Foot and Ankle Surgery, 21(2), 125–131.PubMedCrossRef
126.
Angthong, C., Chernchujit, B., Suntharapa, T., & Harnroongroj, T. (2011). Visual analogue scale foot and ankle: validity and reliability of Thai version of the new outcome score in subjective form. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 94(8), 952–957.PubMed
127.
Jaksa, P. J., & Mahoney, J. L. (2010). Quality of life in patients with diabetic foot ulcers: Validation of the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule in a Canadian population. International Wound Journal, 7(6), 502–507.PubMedCrossRef
128.
Jannink, M. J., de Vries, J., Stewart, R. E., Groothoff, J. W., & Lankhorst, G. J. (2004). Questionnaire for usability evaluation of orthopaedic shoes: construction and reliability in patients with degenerative disorders of the foot. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36(6), 242–248.PubMedCrossRef
129.
Ferrari, R. (2007). Responsiveness of the short-form 36 and oswestry disability questionnaire in chronic nonspecific low back and lower limb pain treated with customized foot orthotics. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 30(6), 456–458.PubMedCrossRef
130.
Cook, J. J., Cook, E. A., Rosenblum, B. I., Landsman, A. S., Roukis, T. S., & Roukis, T. S. (2011). Validation of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons Scoring Scales. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 50(4), 420–429.PubMedCrossRef
131.
Nilsson, G. M., Eneroth, M., & Ekdahl, C. S. (2013). The Swedish version of OMAS is a reliable and valid outcome measure for patients with ankle fractures. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14(109), 1471–2474.
132.
Hung, M., Baumhauer, J. F., Latt, L. D., Saltzman, C. L., SooHoo, N. F., & Hunt, K. J. (2013). Validation of PROMIS (R) Physical Function computerized adaptive tests for orthopaedic foot and ankle outcome research. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471(11), 3466–3474.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
133.
Lai, J. S., Beaumont, J. L., Diaz, J., Khan, S., & Cella, D. (2016). Validation of a short questionnaire to measure symptoms and functional limitations associated with hand-foot syndrome and mucositis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer, 122(2), 287–295.PubMedCrossRef
134.
Anderson, R. T., Keating, K. N., Doll, H. A., & Camacho, F. (2015). The Hand-Foot Skin Reaction and Quality of Life Questionnaire: An Assessment Tool for Oncology. The oncologist, 20(7), 831–838.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
135.
Garcia-Inzunza, J. A., Valles-Medina, A. M., Munoz, F. A., Delgadillo-Ramos, G., & Compean-Ortiz, L. G. (2015). Validity of the Mexican version of the combined Foot Care Confidence / Foot-Care Behavior scale for diabetes. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica, 38(1), 35–41.PubMed
136.
Walmsley, S., Ravey, M., Graham, A., Teh, L. S., & Williams, A. E. (2012). Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for the foot affected by rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(4), 413–422.PubMedCrossRef
137.
Navarro-Flores, E., Morales-Asencio, J. M., Cervera-Marin, J. A., Labajos-Manzanares, M. T., & Gijon-Nogueron, G. (2015). Development, validation and psychometric analysis of the diabetic foot self-care questionnaire of the University of Malaga, Spain (DFSQ-UMA). Journal of Tissue Viability, 24(1), 24–34.PubMedCrossRef
138.
Castillo-Tandazo, W., Flores-Fortty, A., Feraud, L., & Tettamanti, D. (2013). Spanish translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Questionnaire for Diabetes-Related Foot Disease (Q-DFD). Vascular Health and Risk Management, 9, 501–508.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
139.
Niki, H., Tatsunami, S., Haraguchi, N., Aoki, T., Okuda, R., Suda, Y., et al. (2011). Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for foot and ankle: Part 2: Results from the second field survey: validity of the Outcome Instrument for the foot and ankle version 2. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 16(5), 556–564.PubMedCrossRef
140.
Eechaute, C., Vaes, P., & Duquet, W. (2008). The chronic ankle instability scale: clinimetric properties of a multidimensional, patient-assessed instrument. Physical Therapy in Sport, 9(2), 57–66.PubMedCrossRef
141.
Wulterkens, L., Aurégan, J. C., Letellier, T., Mebtouche, N., Levante, S., Cottin, P., et al. (2015). A telephone questionnaire in order to assess functional outcome after post-traumatic limb salvage surgery: Development and preliminary validation. Injury, 46(12), 2452–2456.PubMedCrossRef
142.
Roos, E. M., Roos, H. P., Lohmander, L. S., Ekdahl, C., & Beynnon, B. D. (1998). Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 28(2), 88–96.PubMedCrossRef
143.
Swiontkowski, M. F., Engelberg, R., Martin, D. P., & Agel, J. (1999). Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 81(9), 1245–1260.PubMedCrossRef
144.
Bellamy, N., Buchanan, W. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Campbell, J., & Stitt, L. W. (1988). Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The Journal of Rheumatology, 15(12), 1833–1840.PubMed
145.
Niki, H., Tatsunami, S., Haraguchi, N., Aoki, T., Okuda, R., Suda, Y., et al. (2011). Development of the patient-based outcome instrument for the foot and ankle. Part 1: project description and evaluation of the Outcome Instrument version 1. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 16(5), 536–555.PubMedCrossRef
146.
Hosman, A. H., Mason, R. B., Hobbs, T., & Rothwell, A. G. (2007). A New Zealand national joint registry review of 202 total ankle replacements followed for up to 6 years. Acta Orthopaedica, 78(5), 584–591.PubMedCrossRef
147.
Helliwell, P., Reay, N., Gilworth, G., Redmond, A., Slade, A., Tennant, A., et al. (2005). Development of a foot impact scale for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 53(3), 418–422.PubMedCrossRef
148.
Kitaoka, H. B., Alexander, I. J., Adelaar, R. S., Nunley, J. A., Myerson, M. S., & Sanders, M. (1994). Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot & Ankle International, 15(7), 349–353.CrossRef
149.
Martin, R. L., Burdett, R. G., & Irrgang, J. J. (1999). Development of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI). The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 29, A32–A33.
150.
Greenfield, S., Kaplan, S. H., Silliman, R. A., Sullivan, L., Manning, W., D’Agostino, R., et al. (1994). The uses of outcomes research for medical effectiveness, quality of care, and reimbursement in type II diabetes. Diabetes Care, 17 (Suppl 1), 32–39.PubMed
151.
Sibaud, V., Dalenc, F., Chevreau, C., Roche, H., Delord, J. P., Mourey, L., et al. (2011). HFS-14, a specific quality of life scale developed for patients suffering from hand-foot syndrome. The Oncologist, 16(10), 1469–1478.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
152.
Richter, M., Zech, S., Geerling, J., Frink, M., Knobloch, K., & Krettek, C. (2006). A new foot and ankle outcome score: Questionnaire based, subjective, Visual-Analogue-Scale, validated and computerized. Foot and Ankle Surgery, 12(4), 191–199.CrossRef
153.
Price, P., & Harding, K. (2004). Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule: the development of a condition-specific questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in patients with chronic wounds of the lower limb. International Wound Journal, 1(1), 10–17.PubMedCrossRef
154.
Martin, D. P., Engelberg, R., Agel, J., Snapp, D., & Swiontkowski, M. F. (1996). Development of a musculoskeletal extremity health status instrument: the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment instrument. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 14(2), 173–181.PubMedCrossRef
155.
Fairbank, J. C., Couper, J., Davies, J. B., & O’Brien, J. P. (1980). The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy, 66(8), 271–273.PubMed
156.
Zlotoff, H. J., Christensen, J. C., Mendicino, R. W., Schuberth, J. M., Schwartz, N. H., Thomas, J. L., et al. (2002). ACFAS Universal Foot and Ankle Scoring System: First Metatarsophalangeal Joint and First Ray (module 1). The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 41(1), 2–5.PubMedCrossRef
157.
Olerud, C., & Molander, H. (1984). A scoring scale for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 103(3), 190–194.CrossRef
158.
Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
159.
Wong, M. K., Mohamed, A. F., Hauber, A. B., Yang, J. C., Liu, Z., Rogerio, J., et al. (2012). Patients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Journal of Medical Economics, 15(6), 1139–1148.PubMedCrossRef
160.
Perrin, B. M., Swerissen, H., & Payne, C. (2009). The association between foot-care self efficacy beliefs and actual foot-care behaviour in people with peripheral neuropathy: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 2, 3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
161.
Bergin, S. M., Brand, C. A., Colman, P. G., & Campbell, D. A. (2009). A questionnaire for determining prevalence of diabetes related foot disease (Q-DFD): Construction and validation. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 2, 34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
162.
de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide (Practical Guides to Biostatistics and Epidemiology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp, 347.CrossRef
163.
Elbers, R. G., Rietberg, M. B., van Wegen, E. E., Verhoef, J., Kramer, S. F., Terwee, C. B., et al. (2012). Self-report fatigue questionnaires in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and stroke: a systematic review of measurement properties. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 925–944.PubMedCrossRef
164.
Uijen, A. A., Heinst, C. W., Schellevis, F. G., van den Bosch, W. J., van de Laar, F. A., Terwee, C. B., et al. (2012). Measurement properties of questionnaires measuring continuity of care: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e42256.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
165.
Moher, D., Pham, B., Lawson, M. L., & Klassen, T. P. (2003). The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technology Assessment, 7(41), 1–90.PubMedCrossRef
166.
Morrison, A., Polisena, J., Husereau, D., Moulton, K., Clark, M., Fiander, M., et al. (2012). The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 28(2), 138–144.PubMedCrossRef
167.
Williamson, P., & Clarke, M. (2012). The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative: Its Role in improving cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online), 5, ED000041.
Metadaten
Titel
A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases
verfasst von
Yuanxi Jia
Hsiaomin Huang
Joel J. Gagnier
Publikationsdatum
17.03.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1542-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2017

Quality of Life Research 8/2017 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Pathways linking obesity to health-related quality of life

Brief Communication

The “no problems”-problem: an empirical analysis of ceiling effects on the EQ-5D 5L

OriginalPaper

Effect of a comprehensive health education program on pre-hospital delay intentions in high-risk stroke population and caregivers

OriginalPaper

The association of catastrophizing with quality-of-life outcomes in patients with irritable bowel syndrome

Erratum

Erratum to: The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols

OriginalPaper

Visual function quality of life measure changes upon conversion to neovascular age-related macular degeneration in second eyes