Reporting and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in the Evaluation of Foot Orthoses Treatment: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.3 3区医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Pub Date : 2026-03-01 DOI:10.1002/jfa2.70148

Javier Jiménez-Guillén, Natalia Tovaruela-Carrión, Marta María Moreno-Fresco, Alfonso Martínez-Nova, Pedro V Munuera-Martínez

{"title":"Reporting and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in the Evaluation of Foot Orthoses Treatment: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Javier Jiménez-Guillén, Natalia Tovaruela-Carrión, Marta María Moreno-Fresco, Alfonso Martínez-Nova, Pedro V Munuera-Martínez","doi":"10.1002/jfa2.70148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Currently, there is no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) specifically for evaluating foot orthoses treatments. This led us to ask the following question: What is the quality of the validated foot and ankle PROMs used to evaluate foot orthosis interventions? To do so, we analyzed the psychometric properties of these PROMs and identified the most widely used and those with the best measurement properties.Methods: Two literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the updated COSMIN checklist. Psychometric evidence for the properties investigated in the articles was assessed using the updated COSMIN criteria for good psychometric properties. Ratings of methodological quality and psychometric evidence were synthesized using the method of Schellingerhout et al. (2012).Results: A total of 205 articles were included, identifying 11 validated PROMs for foot and ankle used in the evaluation of foot orthoses. The Foot Function Index (FFI) and the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) were the most commonly used, whereas the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles tendon (VISA-A) questionnaire demonstrated the best measurement properties.Conclusion: The VISA-A, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the Revised Foot Function Index (FFI-R) appear to be useful PROMs for evaluating foot orthoses treatments; however, more evidence is needed to make more robust and reliable statements.","PeriodicalId":49164,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Foot and Ankle Research","volume":"19 1","pages":"e70148"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13097690/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Foot and Ankle Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jfa2.70148","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Currently, there is no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) specifically for evaluating foot orthoses treatments. This led us to ask the following question: What is the quality of the validated foot and ankle PROMs used to evaluate foot orthosis interventions? To do so, we analyzed the psychometric properties of these PROMs and identified the most widely used and those with the best measurement properties.

Methods: Two literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the updated COSMIN checklist. Psychometric evidence for the properties investigated in the articles was assessed using the updated COSMIN criteria for good psychometric properties. Ratings of methodological quality and psychometric evidence were synthesized using the method of Schellingerhout et al. (2012).

Results: A total of 205 articles were included, identifying 11 validated PROMs for foot and ankle used in the evaluation of foot orthoses. The Foot Function Index (FFI) and the Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) were the most commonly used, whereas the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles tendon (VISA-A) questionnaire demonstrated the best measurement properties.

Conclusion: The VISA-A, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and the Revised Foot Function Index (FFI-R) appear to be useful PROMs for evaluating foot orthoses treatments; however, more evidence is needed to make more robust and reliable statements.

查看原文本刊更多论文

足部矫形器治疗评估中患者报告的结果指标的报告和利用：系统回顾。

目的：目前，没有专门用于评估足部矫形器治疗的患者报告的结果测量（PROM）。这导致我们提出以下问题：用于评估足部矫形器干预措施的经过验证的足部和踝关节PROMs的质量如何？为此，我们分析了这些prom的心理测量特性，并确定了最广泛使用的和具有最佳测量特性的prom。方法：在PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library中进行文献检索。使用更新的COSMIN核对表评估文章的方法学质量。文章中调查的属性的心理测量证据是使用更新的COSMIN标准来评估良好的心理测量属性。使用Schellingerhout等人（2012）的方法综合了方法学质量和心理测量证据的评级。结果：共纳入205篇文献，鉴定出11个经验证的足部及踝关节PROMs用于足部矫形器的评价。足部功能指数（FFI）和足部健康状况问卷（FHSQ）是最常用的，而维多利亚运动评估研究所跟腱（VISA-A）问卷显示出最好的测量性能。结论：VISA-A、足踝预后评分（FAOS）和修订后的足功能指数（FFI-R）是评估足部矫形器治疗的有用指标；然而，需要更多的证据来做出更有力和可靠的陈述。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research ORTHOPEDICS-

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

10.30%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, the official journal of the Australian Podiatry Association and The College of Podiatry (UK), is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of policy, organisation, delivery and clinical practice related to the assessment, diagnosis, prevention and management of foot and ankle disorders. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research covers a wide range of clinical subject areas, including diabetology, paediatrics, sports medicine, gerontology and geriatrics, foot surgery, physical therapy, dermatology, wound management, radiology, biomechanics and bioengineering, orthotics and prosthetics, as well the broad areas of epidemiology, policy, organisation and delivery of services related to foot and ankle care. The journal encourages submissions from all health professionals who manage lower limb conditions, including podiatrists, nurses, physical therapists and physiotherapists, orthopaedists, manual therapists, medical specialists and general medical practitioners, as well as health service researchers concerned with foot and ankle care. The Australian Podiatry Association and the College of Podiatry (UK) have reserve funds to cover the article-processing charge for manuscripts submitted by its members. Society members can email the appropriate contact at Australian Podiatry Association or The College of Podiatry to obtain the corresponding code to enter on submission.