Advanced search
Publication Cover
Acta Orthopaedica Volume 88, 2017 - Issue 3
Journal homepage
1,631
Views
24
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Minimally important change, measurement error, and responsiveness for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score

Maria C CösterDepartment of Orthopedics and Clinical Sciences, SUS Malmö, Malmö; Correspondence[email protected]
,
Anna NilsdotterSahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg;
,
Lars BrudinDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Kalmar Hospital, Kalmar; ;Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping;
&
Ann BremanderDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Lund, Section of Rheumatology, Lund University, Lund; ;School of Business, Engineering, and Science, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Pages 300-304 | Received 07 Jul 2016, Accepted 06 Jan 2017, Published online: 18 Feb 2017

  • Beard D J, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray D W, Carr A J, Price J P. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(1): 73–9.
  • Beaton D E, Boers M, Wells G A. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002; 14(2): 109–14.
  • Becker B J. Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1988; 41(2): 257–78.
  • Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: Academic Press, New York; 1978.
  • Copay A G, Subach B R, Glassman S D, Polly D W, Jr., Schuler T C. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7(5): 541–6.
  • Coster M, Karlsson M K, Nilsson J A, Carlsson A. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS). Acta Orthop 2012; 83(2): 197–203.
  • Coster M C, Bremander A, Rosengren B E, Magnusson H, Carlsson A, Karlsson M K. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders. Acta Orthop 2014a; 85(2): 187–94.
  • Coster M C, Rosengren B E, Bremander A, Brudin L, Karlsson M K. Comparison of the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS). Foot Ankle Int 2014b; 35(10): 1031–6.
  • Coster M C, Rosengren B E, Bremander A, Karlsson M K. Surgery for adult acquired flatfoot due to posterior tibial tendon dysfunction reduces pain, improves function and health related quality of life. Foot Ankle Surg 2015; 21(4): 286–9.
  • Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. 2 ed. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd; 1940.
  • Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, et al. Minimally important change was estimated for the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire after foot/ankle surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67(6): 697–705.
  • de Vet H C, Terluin B, Knol D L, Roorda LD, Mokkink L B, Ostelo R W, Hendriks E J M, Bouter L M, Terwee C B. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied “minimally important change” values. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63(1): 37–45.
  • Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study G. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2003; 12(1): 12–20.
  • Hosman A H, Mason R B, Hobbs T, Rothwell A G. A New Zealand national joint registry review of 202 total ankle replacements followed for up to 6 years. Acta Orthop 2007; 78(5): 584–91.
  • Mokkink L B, Terwee C B, Knol D L, Stratford P W, Alonso J, Patrick D L, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC medical research methodology 2010a; 10: 22.
  • Mokkink L B, Terwee C B, Patrick D L, Alonso J, Stratford P W, Knol D L, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010b; 19(4):539–49.
  • Mokkink L B, Prinsen C A, Bouter L M, Vet H C, Terwee C B. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther 2016; 20(2): 105–13.
  • Muradin I, van der Heide H J L. The foot function index is more sensitive to change than the Leeds Foot Impact Scale for evaluating rheumatoid arthritis patients after forefoot or hindfoot reconstruction. Int Orthop (SICOT) 2016; 40: 745–9.
  • Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, Lyman S, Denissen G, Dawson J, Dunn J, Eresian Chenok K, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Lübbeke A. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop 2016; 87eSuppl363: 9–23.
  • Sierevelt I N, van Eekeren I C, Haverkamp D, Reilingh M L, Terwee C B, Kerkhoffs G M. Evaluation of the Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS): responsiveness and Minimally Important Change. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24(4): 1339–47.
  • Sorensen A A, Howard D, Tan W H, Ketchersid J, Calfee R P. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am 2013; 38(4): 641–9.
  • Suk M. Musculoskeletal Outcomes measures and Instruments: AO Foundation; 2009.
  • Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee C B, de Vet H C. Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(12): 1388–96.
  • Terwee C B, Bot S D, de Boer M R, van der Windt D A, Knol D L, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60(1): 34–42.
  • van Kampen D A, Willems W J, van Beers L W A H, Castelein R M, Scholtes V A B, Terwee C B. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable changes (SCD) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orth Surg Res 2013; 8: 40.
  • Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, Lenderking WR, Acaster S, Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life R. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2013; 22(3): 475–83.
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2006; 4:79.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.