| Title |
Relationship between patient‐reported outcome measures (PROM) and three measures of foot–ankle alignment in patients with metatarsal head pain: a cross‐sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13047-016-0182-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manuel González-Sánchez, Esther Velasco-Ramos, Maria Ruiz Muñoz, Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas |
| Abstract |
The aim of the present study is to establish the relationship between foot-ankle patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and three measures of foot-ankle alignment (MoFAA) in patients with metatarsal head pain. A cross-sectional study where 206 patients completed three PROMs and a clinician recorded three MoFAA bilaterally (three times each). A reliability analysis of the MoFAA, a correlation analysis (between MoFAA and PROM) and regression analysis (dependent variable: PROM; independent variables: MoFAA) were performed. Pearson's coefficient changed in each PROM used, ranging from 0.243 (AAOS-FAMShoeComfortScale-FVARight) to 0.807 (FFIIndex-first MTPJEright). Regression indices (R(2)-corrected) ranged between 0.117 (AAOS-FAMShoeComfortScale) and 0.701 (FFIIndex). The MoFAA correlated between moderately to strongly with the foot-ankle PROM selected. The level of correlation between MoFAA and PROM was higher when patients with metatarsal head pain were asked about foot health status, pain and function; however, the correlation was poor when the patient was asked about shoe aspects. In addition, the MoFAA variable that achieved the highest correlation value was the first metatarsophalangeal joint extension. The results obtained in this study could be used in future studies to develop tools for assessing and monitoring patients with metatarsal head pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Australia | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 15% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |