Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Questionnaire: A Systematic Review.

IF 0.6 4区医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.7547/24-070

Ana Belen Ortega-Avila, Sandra Sanchez-Morilla, Maria Hermas Galan-Hurtado, Pablo Cervera-Garvi, Jorge Garcia-Medina, Ana Marchena-Rodriguez

{"title":"Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Questionnaire: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Ana Belen Ortega-Avila, Sandra Sanchez-Morilla, Maria Hermas Galan-Hurtado, Pablo Cervera-Garvi, Jorge Garcia-Medina, Ana Marchena-Rodriguez","doi":"10.7547/24-070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure is frequently used by clinicians and researchers to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for patients with foot and ankle pathologies. To review different versions of the FAAM and to evaluate the methodological quality of studies published in this respect.Methods: Systematic review.Setting: A search was conducted in the PubMed, SCOPUS, PEDro, PROSPERO and SPORTDiscus databases, applying the following inclusion criteria: validation studies of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, in different languages, with no time limit, in a population aged ≥18 years. Two of the present authors independently assessed the quality of the studies located and extracted the relevant data. The COSMIN checklist was employed to assess methodological quality.Results: Thirteen instruments met the inclusion criteria for this review. In many cases, significant methodological flaws were detected, mostly regarding criterion validity and measurement error.Conclusion: Only the Spanish-language cultural adaptation of the FAAM presents adequate methodological quality. Further studies, with greater methodological rigour, are required of the cultural adaptations of this measurement instrument.","PeriodicalId":17241,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association","volume":" ","pages":"1-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7547/24-070","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Foot and Ankle Ability Measure is frequently used by clinicians and researchers to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for patients with foot and ankle pathologies. To review different versions of the FAAM and to evaluate the methodological quality of studies published in this respect.

Methods: Systematic review.

Setting: A search was conducted in the PubMed, SCOPUS, PEDro, PROSPERO and SPORTDiscus databases, applying the following inclusion criteria: validation studies of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, in different languages, with no time limit, in a population aged ≥18 years. Two of the present authors independently assessed the quality of the studies located and extracted the relevant data. The COSMIN checklist was employed to assess methodological quality.

Results: Thirteen instruments met the inclusion criteria for this review. In many cases, significant methodological flaws were detected, mostly regarding criterion validity and measurement error.

Conclusion: Only the Spanish-language cultural adaptation of the FAAM presents adequate methodological quality. Further studies, with greater methodological rigour, are required of the cultural adaptations of this measurement instrument.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

足踝能力测量问卷：系统回顾。

背景：临床医生和研究人员经常使用足部和踝关节能力量表来评估足部和踝关节病变患者治疗干预的有效性。回顾不同版本的FAAM，并评估在这方面发表的研究的方法学质量。方法：系统评价。背景：在PubMed、SCOPUS、PEDro、PROSPERO和SPORTDiscus数据库中进行检索，采用以下纳入标准：在年龄≥18岁的人群中，以不同语言、无时间限制进行足踝能力测量的验证研究。两位作者独立评估了研究的质量，并提取了相关数据。采用COSMIN检查表评估方法学质量。结果：13种器械符合本综述的纳入标准。在许多情况下，发现了重大的方法缺陷，主要是关于标准有效性和测量误差。结论：只有FAAM的西班牙语文化适应具有足够的方法论质量。需要对这种测量工具的文化适应性进行更严格的方法上的进一步研究。

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

Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 医学-整形外科

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

128

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, the official journal of the Association, is the oldest and most frequently cited peer-reviewed journal in the profession of foot and ankle medicine. Founded in 1907 and appearing 6 times per year, it publishes research studies, case reports, literature reviews, special communications, clinical correspondence, letters to the editor, book reviews, and various other types of submissions. The Journal is included in major indexing and abstracting services for biomedical literature.