Comparison of four patient reported outcome measures in patients with ankle fracture: A study on patient preferences and psychometric properties.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Foot and Ankle Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-14 DOI:10.1016/j.fas.2024.07.001
Per Hviid Gundtoft, Julie Ladeby Erichsen, Mads Terndrup, Lauritz Walsøe, Lasse Pedersen, Bjarke Viberg, Alice Ørts, Charlotte Abrahamsen
{"title":"Comparison of four patient reported outcome measures in patients with ankle fracture: A study on patient preferences and psychometric properties.","authors":"Per Hviid Gundtoft, Julie Ladeby Erichsen, Mads Terndrup, Lauritz Walsøe, Lasse Pedersen, Bjarke Viberg, Alice Ørts, Charlotte Abrahamsen","doi":"10.1016/j.fas.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim was to assess psychometric properties of Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS), the Olerud Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), and the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) in adults with ankle fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients received all four questionnaires 6, 12, 14, 24, 52, and 104 weeks following an ankle fracture. According to COSMIN guidelines, statistical tests were performed to assess floor- and ceiling effects, structural validity, construct validity and reliability. Cognitive interview was performed with 9 patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MOXFQ showed best model fit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. When testing construct validity, all hypotheses were accepted except for OMAS and FJS. All questionnaires had an almost perfect test-retest reliability (Interclass Correlation Coefficient 0.81 to 0.91) and Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.76 to 0.95. MOXFQ was the best rated questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All questionnaires performed well and we recommend MOXFQ for future use in ankle fracture studies.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":48743,"journal":{"name":"Foot and Ankle Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot and Ankle Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2024.07.001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim was to assess psychometric properties of Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS), the Olerud Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), and the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) in adults with ankle fractures.

Methods: Patients received all four questionnaires 6, 12, 14, 24, 52, and 104 weeks following an ankle fracture. According to COSMIN guidelines, statistical tests were performed to assess floor- and ceiling effects, structural validity, construct validity and reliability. Cognitive interview was performed with 9 patients.

Results: MOXFQ showed best model fit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. When testing construct validity, all hypotheses were accepted except for OMAS and FJS. All questionnaires had an almost perfect test-retest reliability (Interclass Correlation Coefficient 0.81 to 0.91) and Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.76 to 0.95. MOXFQ was the best rated questionnaire.

Conclusion: All questionnaires performed well and we recommend MOXFQ for future use in ankle fracture studies.

Level of evidence: Level IV.

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
踝关节骨折患者的四种患者报告结果测量方法的比较:关于患者偏好和心理测量特性的研究。
研究背景目的是评估曼彻斯特牛津足部问卷(MOXFQ)、自我报告足踝评分(SEFAS)、奥勒德-莫兰德足踝评分(OMAS)和遗忘关节评分(FJS)在成人踝关节骨折患者中的心理测量特性:患者在踝关节骨折后的 6、12、14、24、52 和 104 周接受所有四种问卷调查。根据 COSMIN 指南,进行了统计测试以评估下限和上限效应、结构效度、构架效度和可靠性。对 9 名患者进行了认知访谈:结果:MOXFQ在确证因子分析中显示出最佳模型拟合度。在检验结构效度时,除 OMAS 和 FJS 外,其他假设均被接受。所有问卷的测试-再测试可靠性几乎完美(类间相关系数为 0.81 至 0.91),Cronbach's alpha 为 0.76 至 0.95。MOXFQ是评价最好的问卷:结论:所有问卷均表现良好,我们建议今后在踝关节骨折研究中使用 MOXFQ:证据等级:IV 级。
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
Foot and Ankle Surgery
Foot and Ankle Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
16.00%
发文量
202
期刊介绍: Foot and Ankle Surgery is essential reading for everyone interested in the foot and ankle and its disorders. The approach is broad and includes all aspects of the subject from basic science to clinical management. Problems of both children and adults are included, as is trauma and chronic disease. Foot and Ankle Surgery is the official journal of European Foot and Ankle Society. The aims of this journal are to promote the art and science of ankle and foot surgery, to publish peer-reviewed research articles, to provide regular reviews by acknowledged experts on common problems, and to provide a forum for discussion with letters to the Editors. Reviews of books are also published. Papers are invited for possible publication in Foot and Ankle Surgery on the understanding that the material has not been published elsewhere or accepted for publication in another journal and does not infringe prior copyright.
期刊最新文献
Factors influencing the speed of correction speed of distal tibial valgus deformity in children with percutaneous epiphyseodesis using transphyseal screw. Innovative surgical treatment of tarsal coalition in flatfoot: Resection and interposition of synthetic membrane, flexible bioresorbable polymers film, as adhesion barrier and subtalar arthroeresis. Up to nine years follow-up. The health economics of orthopaedic foot and ankle surgery. Automatic Hardy and Clapham's classification of hallux sesamoid position on foot radiographs using deep neural network. Favorable change in patient-reported outcomes following peroneus longus to brevis tendon transfer and lateral ankle ligament reconstruction.
×
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