Content validation of the progressive collapsing foot deformity classification

Mingjie Zhu, Moustafa A. Maher, Wanjun Gu, Kenneth Hunt, M. Myerson, Shuyuan Li
{"title":"Content validation of the progressive collapsing foot deformity classification","authors":"Mingjie Zhu, Moustafa A. Maher, Wanjun Gu, Kenneth Hunt, M. Myerson, Shuyuan Li","doi":"10.30795/jfootankle.2023.v17.1731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The aim of this study was to validate the content accuracy of the PCFD classification. Methods: A survey-based study distributed through international foot and ankle programs among surgeons with vast experience in practice to analyze the terminology and interpretations used in the PCFD classification. A returned survey with completion of all questions filled out was considered a valid record. Descriptive statistical analysis was applied using SAS version 9.4 for data processing, statistical analysis, and visualization. Results: Eighty-two valid returned surveys from surgeons in 22 countries with a mean of 16 years in clinical practice were included. Among them, 80.5% of the participants considered the PCFD classification helpful in guiding decision-making, 79.3% thought it helped facilitate diagnosis and documentation, 58.5% found it easy to use, 30.5% were unlikely to use the classification, and 29.3% noted that the interpretation of the classification was not clear. Regarding the accuracy, clarity, and clinical relevance of terminology, 42.7% had difficulty in using increased foot and ankle offset, 35.4% had difficulty in using increased hindfoot moment arm, 19.5% found peritalar subluxation not clear, 13.4% found the term sinus tarsi impingement an unclear description, and 8.5% found forefoot varus difficult to diagnose. Conclusions: This international survey-based study provides readers with insights into the content of the PCFD classification. The findings indicate that some terminologies used in the PCFD classification are not universally understood. The authors recommend that modifications may be beneficial to enhance the accuracy and user-friendliness of the PCFD classification. Level of Evidence II; Retrospective study.","PeriodicalId":436014,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Foot & Ankle","volume":"121 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Foot & Ankle","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30795/jfootankle.2023.v17.1731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to validate the content accuracy of the PCFD classification. Methods: A survey-based study distributed through international foot and ankle programs among surgeons with vast experience in practice to analyze the terminology and interpretations used in the PCFD classification. A returned survey with completion of all questions filled out was considered a valid record. Descriptive statistical analysis was applied using SAS version 9.4 for data processing, statistical analysis, and visualization. Results: Eighty-two valid returned surveys from surgeons in 22 countries with a mean of 16 years in clinical practice were included. Among them, 80.5% of the participants considered the PCFD classification helpful in guiding decision-making, 79.3% thought it helped facilitate diagnosis and documentation, 58.5% found it easy to use, 30.5% were unlikely to use the classification, and 29.3% noted that the interpretation of the classification was not clear. Regarding the accuracy, clarity, and clinical relevance of terminology, 42.7% had difficulty in using increased foot and ankle offset, 35.4% had difficulty in using increased hindfoot moment arm, 19.5% found peritalar subluxation not clear, 13.4% found the term sinus tarsi impingement an unclear description, and 8.5% found forefoot varus difficult to diagnose. Conclusions: This international survey-based study provides readers with insights into the content of the PCFD classification. The findings indicate that some terminologies used in the PCFD classification are not universally understood. The authors recommend that modifications may be beneficial to enhance the accuracy and user-friendliness of the PCFD classification. Level of Evidence II; Retrospective study.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
进行性塌足畸形分类的内容验证
研究目的本研究旨在验证 PCFD 分类的内容准确性。方法: 通过国际足踝计划向具有丰富实践经验的外科医生发放调查问卷,分析 PCFD 术语和内容的准确性:通过国际足踝项目向具有丰富实践经验的外科医生发放调查问卷,分析 PCFD 分类中使用的术语和解释。收回的调查表中所有问题均填写完整,即为有效记录。描述性统计分析采用 SAS 9.4 版进行数据处理、统计分析和可视化。结果共收到来自 22 个国家的 82 份有效调查问卷,这些外科医生平均从事临床工作 16 年。其中,80.5% 的参与者认为 PCFD 分类有助于指导决策,79.3% 的参与者认为它有助于促进诊断和记录,58.5% 的参与者认为它易于使用,30.5% 的参与者不太可能使用该分类,29.3% 的参与者指出该分类的解释不清楚。关于术语的准确性、清晰度和临床相关性,42.7%的人在使用足踝偏移增加时遇到困难,35.4%的人在使用后足力矩臂增加时遇到困难,19.5%的人认为眶周脱位不清楚,13.4%的人认为跗骨窦撞击一词的描述不清楚,8.5%的人认为前足外翻难以诊断。结论:这项基于国际调查的研究为读者提供了有关 PCFD 分类内容的见解。研究结果表明,PCFD 分类中使用的一些术语并未得到普遍理解。作者建议对 PCFD 分类进行修改,以提高其准确性和用户友好性。证据等级 II;回顾性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fourth generation minimally invasive osteotomy with rotational control for hallux valgus: a case series Progressive collapsing foot deformity: how to use new knowledge in developing countries Correlation between the region of interest in digital radiography, Hounsfield units, and histological maturation on Wistar rats submitted to tibial fracture ESTUDO COMPARATIVO DE MÉTODOS DE FIXAÇÃO DA OSTEOTOMIA DE CHEVRON NA CIRURGIA PERCUTÂNEA DO HÁLUX VALGO Translation of AOFAS Hallux Metatarsophalangeal- Interphalangeal Scale into Portuguese
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1