A 5-Year Review of Clinical Outcome Measures Published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery®


      This investigation presents a review of all of the clinical outcome measures used by authors and published in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery® from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2015. Of 1,336 articles published during this time frame, 655 (49.0%) were classified as original research and included in this analysis. Of these 655 articles, 151 (23.1%) included at least one clinical outcome measure. Thirty-seven unique clinical outcome scales were used by authors and published during this period. The most frequently reported scales in the 151 included articles were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scales (54.3%; n = 82), visual analog scale (35.8%; n = 54), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (any version) (10.6%; n = 16), Foot Function Index (5.3%; n = 8), Maryland Foot Score (4.0%; n = 6), and Olerud and Molander scoring system (4.0%; n = 6). Twenty-four (15.9%) articles used some form of original/subjective measure of patient satisfaction/expectation. The results of this investigation detail the considerable variety of clinical outcome measurement tools used by authors in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery® and might support the need for a shift toward the consistent use of a smaller number of valid, reliable, and clinically useful scales in the podiatric medical literature.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Hunt K.J.
        • Hurwit D.
        Use of patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle research.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95: e118
        • Andrawis J.P.
        • Chenok K.E.
        • Bozic K.J.
        Health policy implications of outcomes measurement in orthopaedics.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 3475
        • Snyder C.F.
        • Aaronson N.K.
        Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice.
        Lancet. 2009; 374: 369
        • Chow A.
        • Mayer E.K.
        • Darzi A.W.
        • Athanasiou T.
        Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery.
        Surgery. 2009; 146: 435
        • Shirley E.D.
        • Sanders J.O.
        Patient satisfaction: implications and predictors of success.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95: e69
        • Bosco III, J.A.
        • Sachdev R.
        • Shapiro L.A.
        • Stein S.M.
        • Zuckerman J.D.
        Measuring quality in orthopaedic surgery: the use of metrics in quality management.
        Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63: 47
        • Katz G.
        • Ong C.
        • Hutzler L.
        • Zuckerman J.D.
        • Bosco III, J.A.
        Applying quality principles to orthopaedic surgery.
        Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63: 465
        • Martin R.L.
        • Irrgang J.J.
        A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007; 37: 72
        • Button G.
        • Pinney S.
        A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system?.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2004; 25: 521
        • Smith M.V.
        • Klein S.E.
        • Clohisy J.C.
        • Baca G.R.
        • Brophy R.H.
        • Wright R.W.
        Lower extremity-specific measures of disability and outcome in orthopaedic surgery.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 95: 468
        • Shultz S.
        • Olszewski A.
        • Ramsey O.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of outcome tools used to measure lower leg conditions.
        Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013; 8: 838
        • Pynsent P.B.
        Choosing an outcome measure.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83: 792
        • Goldstein C.L.
        • Schemitsch E.
        • Bhandari M.
        • Mathew G.
        • Petrisor B.A.
        Comparison of different outcome instruments following foot and ankle trauma.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2010; 31: 1075
        • SooHoo N.F.
        • Shuler M.
        • Fleming L.L.
        American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2003; 24: 50
        • Baumhauer J.F.
        • Nawoczenski D.A.
        • DiGiovanni B.F.
        • Wilding G.E.
        Reliability and validity of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Clinical Rating Scale: a pilot study for the hallux and lesser toes.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27: 1014
        • Madeley N.J.
        • Wing K.J.
        • Topliss C.
        • Penner M.J.
        • Glazebrook M.A.
        • Younger A.S.
        Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Orthoarthritis Scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2012; 33: 57
        • Pinsker E.
        • Daniels T.R.
        AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems.
        Foot Ankle Int. 2011; 32: 842