Research output per year
Research output per year
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are used in all medical disciplines to evaluate patients with
different diseases and also to follow results after treatments such as surgery. Currently there is no generally accepted
and fully validated PRO instrument for the foot and ankle.
Aims: To translate the New Zealand Ankle Questionnaire into a Swedish version, [the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle
Score (SEFAS)] and to evaluate the validity, reliability and responsiveness of SEFAS in patients with disabilities in the
foot and/or ankle. The second aim was to compare SEFAS with four other PRO instruments: EQ-5D, SF-36, Foot
and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and American Orhopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score.
Methods: In study I, we translated SEFAS into Swedish. We then included 135 patients registered in the Swedish
Ankle Registry with osteoarthritis or inflammatory arthritis in the ankle joint. These patients completed SEFAS,
FAOS, EQ-5D and SF-36. In study II we included 224 patients scheduled for surgery with a variety of foot and ankle
disabilities who completed the same PRO instruments as in study I. In study III we included 206 patients scheduled
for surgery with a variety of foot and ankle disabilities who completed SEFAS and AOFAS. Validity, reliability and
responsiveness in addition to time to complete the instruments were then evaluated in studies I–III. In study IV we
included 21 patients scheduled for surgery due to a flatfoot deformity. These patients completed SEFAS, EQ-5D and
SF-36 before surgery and 6 and 24 months after surgery.
Results: In studies I-III we found good validity, reliability and responsiveness for SEFAS in patients with disorders in
the forefoot, hindfoot and ankle. The results for SEFAS were better than or comparable to EQ-5D, SF-36, FAOS and
AOFAS. In study IV we found that SEFAS was able to capture an improvement by surgery in patients with flatfoot
deformity and that the improvement continued up to 24 months after surgery.
Conclusion: SEFAS is a PRO instrument with good validity, reliability and responsiveness. We recommend SEFAS as
a PRO instrument when evaluating surgery in the foot and ankle, also in national registries.
different diseases and also to follow results after treatments such as surgery. Currently there is no generally accepted
and fully validated PRO instrument for the foot and ankle.
Aims: To translate the New Zealand Ankle Questionnaire into a Swedish version, [the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle
Score (SEFAS)] and to evaluate the validity, reliability and responsiveness of SEFAS in patients with disabilities in the
foot and/or ankle. The second aim was to compare SEFAS with four other PRO instruments: EQ-5D, SF-36, Foot
and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and American Orhopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score.
Methods: In study I, we translated SEFAS into Swedish. We then included 135 patients registered in the Swedish
Ankle Registry with osteoarthritis or inflammatory arthritis in the ankle joint. These patients completed SEFAS,
FAOS, EQ-5D and SF-36. In study II we included 224 patients scheduled for surgery with a variety of foot and ankle
disabilities who completed the same PRO instruments as in study I. In study III we included 206 patients scheduled
for surgery with a variety of foot and ankle disabilities who completed SEFAS and AOFAS. Validity, reliability and
responsiveness in addition to time to complete the instruments were then evaluated in studies I–III. In study IV we
included 21 patients scheduled for surgery due to a flatfoot deformity. These patients completed SEFAS, EQ-5D and
SF-36 before surgery and 6 and 24 months after surgery.
Results: In studies I-III we found good validity, reliability and responsiveness for SEFAS in patients with disorders in
the forefoot, hindfoot and ankle. The results for SEFAS were better than or comparable to EQ-5D, SF-36, FAOS and
AOFAS. In study IV we found that SEFAS was able to capture an improvement by surgery in patients with flatfoot
deformity and that the improvement continued up to 24 months after surgery.
Conclusion: SEFAS is a PRO instrument with good validity, reliability and responsiveness. We recommend SEFAS as
a PRO instrument when evaluating surgery in the foot and ankle, also in national registries.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Qualification | Doctor |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisors/Advisors |
|
| Award date | 2015 May 21 |
| Publisher | |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-91-7619-133-0 |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |
Bibliographical note
Defence detailsDate: 2015-05-21
Time: 13:00
Place: The Lecture Hall, level 5, Department of Orthopaedics, Skåne University Hospital, Inga Marie Nilssons gata 28, Malmö, Sweden
External reviewer(s)
Name: Rolfson, Ola
Title: Associate Professor
Affiliation: Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
---
Subject classification (UKÄ)
- Clinical Medicine
Free keywords
- ankle
- foot
- measurement properties
- patient-reported outcome measures
- reliability
- responsiveness
- SEFAS
- validity
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'SEFAS The Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.-
Comparison of the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS).
Cöster, M., Rosengren, B., Bremander, A., Brudin, L. & Karlsson, M., 2014, In: Foot & Ankle International. 35, 10, p. 1031-1036Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
-
Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) in forefoot, hindfoot, and ankle disorders.
Cöster, M., Bremander, A., Rosengren, B., Magnusson, H. I., Carlsson, Å. & Karlsson, M., 2014, In: Acta Orthopaedica. 85, 2, p. 187-194Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Open Access -
Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS)
Cöster, M. & Carlsson, Å., 2012, In: Acta Orthopaedica. 83, 6, p. 674-675Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter
Open Access