Zwiers R, Weel H, Mallee W H, Kerkhoffs G M M J, van Dijk C N
Academic Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Center for Evidence Based Sports Medicine (ACES), The Netherlands; Amsterdam Collaboration for Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), The Netherlands.
Academic Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Academic Center for Evidence Based Sports Medicine (ACES), The Netherlands; Amsterdam Collaboration for Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS), The Netherlands.
Foot Ankle Surg. 2018 Jun;24(3):246-251. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2017.02.013. Epub 2017 Mar 9.
There is an increasing interest in the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, there is a large variety of PROMs and a lack of consensus regarding preference for their use. Aim of this study is to determine how often PROMS are used for foot and ankle disorders, for what purpose PROMs are used, and what the preferences of the foot and ankle surgeons are, when choosing a PROM to use.
Members of the Ankleplatform Study Group-Science of Variation Collaborative were invited to participate in this survey by email. The online survey consisted of six questions on the use and preferences regarding foot and ankle PROMs.
188 participants completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents 17% reported not to use PROMs, 72% stated to use PROMS for research, 39% routinely for patient care and 34% for registration or quality assessment. The respondents were familiar with 30 different outcome measures, of which 20 were PROMs. One of the excluded outcome measures, the AOFAS Hindfoot scale was most commonly reported as preferred outcome measure. FAOS and MOXFQ were the preferred PROMs, reported by 9.7% of the surgeons. Subsequently followed by the FFI (4.3%), the FAAM (3.7%) and the VAS-FA (3.7%).
A large majority of the foot and ankle surgeons uses PROMs. The AOFAS hindfoot scale is mentioned as the most preferred outcome measure, while in fact this is not a PROM. Of the twenty different PROMs mentioned in this study, most reported were the FAOS and MOXFQ both supported by only 9.7% of the surgeons. For proper comparison between patients in clinical practice and research, consensus is needed on which easy-to-use PROM with adequate clinimetric properties should be used. Therefore more evidence in the field of clinimetrics of foot and ankle outcome measures is needed.
对患者报告结局测量指标(PROMs)的使用兴趣日益增加。然而,PROMs种类繁多,对于其使用偏好缺乏共识。本研究的目的是确定PROMs用于足踝疾病的频率、使用目的,以及足踝外科医生在选择使用的PROM时的偏好。
通过电子邮件邀请踝关节平台研究组-变异科学协作组的成员参与本次调查。在线调查包括六个关于足踝PROMs使用和偏好的问题。
188名参与者完成了问卷。在受访者中,17%报告未使用PROMs,72%表示将PROMs用于研究,39%常规用于患者护理,34%用于登记或质量评估。受访者熟悉30种不同的结局测量指标,其中20种是PROMs。被排除的结局测量指标之一,美国足踝外科协会(AOFAS)后足评分最常被报告为首选结局测量指标。足踝功能评估量表(FAOS)和足踝部牛津量表(MOXFQ)是首选的PROMs,9.7%的外科医生报告使用。随后是足部功能指数(FFI,4.3%)、足踝功能评估量表(FAAM,3.7%)和足踝视觉模拟评分(VAS-FA,3.7%)。
绝大多数足踝外科医生使用PROMs。AOFAS后足评分被提及为最首选的结局测量指标,而实际上这不是一个PROM。在本研究提到的20种不同的PROMs中,报告最多的是FAOS和MOXFQ,均只有9.7%的外科医生支持。为了在临床实践和研究中对患者进行恰当比较,需要就应使用哪种具有足够测量学特性的易用PROM达成共识。因此,在足踝结局测量指标的测量学领域需要更多证据。