본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

족부족관절 분야의 환자 자가 보고 결과 평가법

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of the Foot and Ankle

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in assessing the patient’s overall health, lesion-specific outcomes, and condition-specific outcomes. PROMs are also known as “scoring systems” and are usually in questionnaires. There are almost a hundred different PROMs available in foot and ankle surgery. Each PROM has its merits, demerits, and validity. Selecting an appropriate PROM is important for adequately evaluating a patient’s health status. This article summarizes the most frequently used PROMs in the literature on foot and ankle surgery and presents the authors’ recommendations.

Abstract

The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in assessing the patient’s overall health, lesion-specific outcomes, and condition-specific outcomes. PROMs are also known as “scoring systems” and are usually in questionnaires. There are almost a hundred different PROMs available in foot and ankle surgery. Each PROM has its merits, demerits, and validity. Selecting an appropriate PROM is important for adequately evaluating a patient’s health status. This article summarizes the most frequently used PROMs in the literature on foot and ankle surgery and presents the authors’ recommendations.

참고문헌 (50)

  1. Naal FD, "Which are the most frequently used outcome instruments in studies on total ankle arthroplasty?", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 468, pp.815~826 (2010)[DOI]
  2. Hunt KJ, "Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle surgery", Orthop Clin North Am, 49, pp.277~289 (2018)[DOI]
  3. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, "Instruments for collection of orthopaedic quality data" (2016), American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
  4. Scott J, "Graphic representation of pain", Pain, 2, pp.175~184 (1976)[DOI]
  5. Ware JE Jr, "The MOS 36-item short-form health survey(SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection", Med Care, 30, pp.473~483 (1992)[DOI]
  6. Kitaoka HB, "Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, mid-foot, hallux, and lesser toes", Foot Ankle Int, 15, pp.349~353 (1994)[DOI]
  7. Budiman-Mak E, "The Foot Function Index : a measure of foot pain and disability", J Clin Epidemiol, 44, pp.561~570 (1991)[DOI]
  8. EuroQol Group, "EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life", Health Policy, 16, pp.199~208 (1990)[DOI]
  9. Lakey E, "Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle orthopedics", Foot Ankle Orthop, 4, pp.2473011419852930~ (2019)[DOI]
  10. Nilsson-Helander K, "The Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score(ATRS) : development and validation", Am J Sports Med, 35, pp.421~426 (2007)[DOI]
  11. Domsic RT, "Ankle osteoarthritis scale", Foot Ankle Int, 19, pp.466~471 (1998)[DOI]
  12. Kearney RS, "A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess Achilles tendon rupture management : what’s being used and should we be using it?", Br J Sports Med, 46, pp.1102~1109 (2012)[DOI]
  13. Jia Y, "A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases", Qual Life Res, 26, pp.1969~2010 (2017)[DOI]
  14. Mokkink LB, "The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes", J Clin Epidemiol, 63, pp.737~745 (2010)[DOI]
  15. Terwee CB, "Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires", J Clin Epidemiol, 60, pp.34~42 (2007)[DOI]
  16. van Tulder M, "Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group", Spine(Phila Pa 1976), 28, pp.1290~1299 (2003)[DOI]
  17. Prinsen CAC, "COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patientreported outcome measures", Qual Life Res, 27, pp.1147~1157 (2018)[DOI]
  18. Hunt KJ, "Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 95, pp.e118~ (2013)
  19. Pinsker E, "AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems", Foot Ankle Int, 32, pp.841~842 (2011)[DOI]
  20. Malviya A, "Correlation of the AOFAS scores with a generic health QUALY score in foot and ankle surgery", Foot Ankle Int, 28, pp.494~498 (2007)[DOI]
  21. Ferreira-Valente MA, "Validity of four pain intensity rating scales", Pain, 152, pp.2399~2404 (2011)[DOI]
  22. Kersten P, "Is the pain visual analogue scale linear and responsive to change? An exploration using Rasch analysis", PLoS One, 9, pp.e99485~ (2014)[DOI]
  23. Busija L, "Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in SF-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery", Health Qual Life Outcomes, 6, pp.55~ (2008)[DOI]
  24. Laucis NC, "Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics : a brief guide", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 97, pp.1628~1634 (2015)[DOI]
  25. Jenkinson C, "A shorter form health survey : can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies?", J Public Health Med, 19, pp.179~186 (1997)[DOI]
  26. Gosling CM, "Validity of outcome measures used to assess one and six month outcomes in orthopaedic trauma patients", Injury, 42, pp.1443~1448 (2011)[DOI]
  27. Hijji FY, "The popularity of outcome measures used in the foot and ankle literature", Foot Ankle Spec, 13, pp.58~68 (2020)[DOI]
  28. Brooks R, "EuroQol : the current state of play", Health Policy, 37, pp.53~72 (1996)[DOI]
  29. Mani SB, "Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score in adult acquired flatfoot deformity", Foot Ankle Int, 34, pp.1140~1146 (2013)[DOI]
  30. Golightly YM, "Psychometric properties of the foot and ankle outcome score in a community-based study of adults with and without osteoarthritis", Arthritis Care Res(Hoboken), 66, pp.395~403 (2014)[DOI]
  31. Lee KM, "Transcultural adaptation and testing psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score(FAOS)", Clin Rheumatol, 32, pp.1443~1450 (2013)[DOI]
  32. Shazadeh Safavi P, "A systematic review of the outcome evaluation tools for the foot and ankle", Foot Ankle Spec, 12, pp.461~470 (2019)[DOI]
  33. In TS, "The reliability and validity of the Korean version of the foot function index for patients with foot complaints", J Phys Ther Sci, 29, pp.53~56 (2017)[DOI]
  34. Huh JW, "Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Foot Function Index", J Foot Ankle Surg, 55, pp.759~761 (2016)[DOI]
  35. Budiman-Mak E, "Theoretical model and Rasch analysis to develop a revised Foot Function Index", Foot Ankle Int, 27, pp.519~527 (2006)[DOI]
  36. Budiman-Mak E, "A review of the foot function index and the foot function index-revised", J Foot Ankle Res, 6, pp.5~ (2013)[DOI]
  37. Hale SA, "Reliability and sensitivity of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index in subjects with chronic ankle instability", J Athl Train, 40, pp.35~40 (2005)
  38. Martin RL, "Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure(FAAM)", Foot Ankle Int, 26, pp.968~983 (2005)[DOI]
  39. Dawson J, "A patient-based questionnaire to assess outcomes of foot surgery : validation in the context of surgery for hallux valgus", Qual Life Res, 15, pp.1211~1222 (2006)[DOI]
  40. Dawson J, "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 Cartilage, 15, pp.918~931 (2007)[DOI]
  41. Venkatesan M, "Evaluation of validity, reliability, and feasibility of 3 patient-reported foot and ankle outcome measures", J Foot Ankle Surg, 59, pp.507~512 (2020)[DOI]
  42. Pinsker E, "Reliability and validity of 6 measures of pain, function, and disability for ankle arthroplasty and arthrodesis", Foot Ankle Int, 36, pp.617~625 (2015)[DOI]
  43. Madeley NJ, "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 Int, 33, pp.57~63 (2012)[DOI]
  44. Wing KJ, "Measuring the operative treatment effect in end-stage ankle arthritis:are we asking the right questions? A COFAS multicenter study", Foot Ankle Int, 38, pp.1064~1069 (2017)[DOI]
  45. Croft S, "Association of Ankle Arthritis Score with need for revision surgery", Foot Ankle Int, 38, pp.939~943 (2017)[DOI]
  46. Park YH, "Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Korean translation of the Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score", BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 22, pp.876~ (2021)[DOI]
  47. McKeown R, "Primary outcome measures used in interventional trials for ankle fractures : a systematic review", BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 20, pp.388~ (2019)[DOI]
  48. "Patient reported outcome measures. Quality Measures"[URL]
  49. 김유미, "족부 족관절 질환 환자에서 전자식 족부 기능 지수의 인증: 임의 배정, 전향적, 다기관 연구", 대한족부족관절학회지, 23(1), pp.24~30 (2019), 대한족부족관절학회[DOI]
  50. Park JY, "Comparison between an electronic version of the foot and ankle outcome score and the standard paper version : a randomized multicenter study", Medicine(Baltimore), 98, pp.e17440~ (2019)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

Foot Function Index와 Foot and Ankle Outcome Score의 기입방법 연구: 종이와 연필을 이용한 기입 방법과 전자기기를 이용한두 가지 측정방법에 대한 일치도 비교이영, 권민수, 김정곤, 김지범, 이우천, 장석환, 하정구대한족부족관절학회 · 대한족부족관절학회지2017 · 제21권 제1호족부 족관절 질환 환자에서 전자식 족부 기능 지수의 인증: 임의 배정, 전향적, 다기관 연구김진, 김범수, 김유미, 김윤정, 김준범, 김지범, 김형년, 박세진, 박재용, 서상교, 이동연, 이동오, 이준형, 조재호, 천동일, 최기원, 최영락대한족부족관절학회 · 대한족부족관절학회지2019 · 제23권 제1호족관절 관절염 치료 동향: 대한족부족관절학회 회원 설문조사 분석조병기, 조재호, 2021 대한족부족관절학회 학술위원회, Bae Su-Young, Gwak Heui-Chul, Kim Hak Jun대한족부족관절학회 · 대한족부족관절학회지2021 · 제25권 제3호말기 발목 관절염에 대한 술식 결정 및 환자 선택: 인공관절 치환술 vs. 관절유합술안정태, 조병기대한족부족관절학회 · 대한족부족관절학회지2022 · 제26권 제3호인공발목관절의 임상시험 가이드라인 개발을 위한 문헌적 고찰박진오, 이모세, 이수빈, 이진우, 한승환대한족부족관절학회 · 대한족부족관절학회지2014 · 제18권 제4호말기 발목 관절염 환자에서 발목 유합술과 발목관절 전치환술의 비교Lee Dong Yeon, Yoon Young Sik대한족부족관절학회 · 대한족부족관절학회지2022 · 제26권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)