4.2 Review

Patient-reported outcome measures in hallux valgus surgery. A review of literature

期刊

FOOT AND ANKLE SURGERY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 11-15

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2014.11.004

关键词

Hallux valgus; Outcome; PROM; Literature review; PRISMA; EQ5D; SF-36; VAS; NRS; MOXFQ; FAOS; SEFAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Up to a third of patients may be dissatisfied with the outcome of hallux valgus surgery. This stresses the importance of uniform and relevant outcome measures. The purpose of the current systematic review is to identify and rate available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hallux valgus surgery. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search for outcome measures directed at hallux valgus. We searched electronic databases for relevant content according to the PRISMA standard. Eligible articles were used to give an overview of available PROMs, with qualitative evaluation of their properties. Results: Twenty-eight eligible studies were included. Most adapted general health assessment tools, in studies on hallux valgus surgery, were the EQ5D and the SF-36 score. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was most cited as pain score. Three disease-specific outcome scores were identified: the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ), the foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) and the self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS). The MOXFQ showed the best psychometric properties. Conclusions: The MOXFQ scores best on positively rated qualities based on our criteria. The SEFAS may be a good alternative, however it contains less items which are regarded as important by patients with foot/ankle complaints. A relative drawback of the MOXFQ consists of the copyright licence. The VAS is the best pain score and the SF36 the best general health assessment tool. Availability in native languages and future research should lead to uniformity in application of these tools. (C) 2014 European Foot and Ankle Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据