Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Medical Research
Published in: European Journal of Medical Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

The Munich Ankle Questionnaire (MAQ): a self-assessment tool for a comprehensive evaluation of ankle disorders

Authors: Frederik Greve, Karl Friedrich Braun, Veronika Vitzthum, Michael Zyskowski, Michael Müller, Chlodwig Kirchhoff, Peter Biberthaler, Marc Beirer

Published in: European Journal of Medical Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There are many approved patient-related outcome measurement tools regarding ankle pathologies. However, there is none incorporating the range of motion (ROM) as an objective parameter. Most instruments focus on subjective parameters such as pain and impairment at work or daily living. Furthermore, the majority is only applicable to a specific pathology. Therefore, the objective of our study was to develop and validate the Munich Ankle Questionnaire (MAQ) as a universal self-assessment score including subjective and objective items.

Methods

The established McGuire Score, Bray Score, Ankle Hindfoot Score (AOFAS) and Olerud and Molander Score were analyzed for relevant items and subscales. Items of interest were then condensed and allocated to the respective subscales of the MAQ. The final MAQ consists of 6 items addressing general and demographic data and 12 items addressing three domains: pain (3 items), work and daily living (5 items), movement and ROM (4 items). The evaluation of validity, reliability and responsiveness of the MAQ was performed in a prospective clinical study including traumatic as well as degenerative ankle pathologies.

Results

In total, 148 patients (79 female, 69 male, median age 45 years) were included in the validation study. With intra-class correlation coefficients of at least 0.77, test–retest reliability was proven. Construct validity with a correlation coefficient of 0.82 and responsiveness with a correlation coefficient ranging from 0.42 to 0.47 were confirmed.

Conclusion

The MAQ is a reliable and valid self-assessment measurement tool for the follow-up examination regarding subjective and objective parameters of traumatic and degenerative ankle pathologies. The MAQ has no limitation to specific disorders and allows a broad application.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Forsberg HH, Nelson EC, Reid R, Grossman D, Mastanduno MP, Weiss LT, Fisher ES, Weinstein JN. Using patient-reported outcomes in routine practice: three novel use cases and implications. J Ambul Care Manag. 2015;38(2):188–95.CrossRef
2.
Margolis PA, Peterson LE, Seid M. Collaborative chronic care networks (C3Ns) to transform chronic illness care. Pediatrics. 2013;131(Suppl 4):S219–23.CrossRef
3.
Capuano L, Poulain S, Hardy P, Longo UG, Denaro V, Maffulli N. No correlation between physicians administered elbow rating systems and patient’s satisfaction. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2011;51(2):255–9.
4.
Olerud C, Molander H. A scoring scale for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1984;103(3):190–4.CrossRef
5.
Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(10):788–94.CrossRef
6.
Bray TJ, Endicott M, Capra SE. Treatment of open ankle fractures. Immediate internal fixation versus closed immobilization and delayed fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;240:47–52.
7.
Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American orthopaedic rehabilitation research network. Phys Ther. 1999;79(4):371–83.PubMed
8.
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(11):968–83.CrossRef
9.
Kitaoka HB. Salvage of nonunion following ankle arthrodesis for failed total ankle arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;268:37–43.
10.
McGuire MR, Kyle RF, Gustilo RB, Premer RF. Comparative analysis of ankle arthroplasty versus ankle arthrodesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;226:174–81.
11.
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ. A survey of self-reported outcome instruments for the foot and ankle. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(2):72–84.CrossRef
12.
Lin CW, Donkers NA, Refshauge KM, Beckenkamp PR, Khera K, Moseley AM. Rehabilitation for ankle fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD005595.PubMed
13.
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Lalonde KA, Conti S. Current concepts review: foot and ankle outcome instruments. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(5):383–90.CrossRef
14.
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(8):521–5.CrossRef
15.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.CrossRef
16.
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307.CrossRef
17.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Protocol of the COSMIN study: consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:2.CrossRef
18.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22.CrossRef
19.
Mani SB, Do H, Vulcano E, Hogan MV, Lyman S, Deland JT, Ellis SJ. Evaluation of the foot and ankle outcome score in patients with osteoarthritis of the ankle. Bone Joint J. 2015;97(5):662–7.CrossRef
20.
Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perrin EB, Roberts JS. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther. 1996;18(5):979–92.CrossRef
21.
Beirer M, Fiedler N, Huber S, Schmitt-Sody M, Lorenz S, Biberthaler P, Kirchhoff C. The Munich Knee Questionnaire: development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for knee disorders. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(8):1522–9.CrossRef
22.
Harris KK, Dawson J, Jones LD, Beard DJ, Price AJ. Extending the use of PROMs in the NHS—using the Oxford Knee Score in patients undergoing non-operative management for knee osteoarthritis: a validation study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(8):e003365.CrossRef
23.
Beirer M, Friese H, Lenich A, Cronlein M, Sandmann GH, Biberthaler P, Kirchhoff C, Siebenlist S. The Elbow Self-Assessment Score (ESAS): development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for elbow disorders. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;25(7):2230–6.CrossRef
24.
Thorborg K, Holmich P, Christensen R, Petersen J, Roos EM. The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(6):478–91.CrossRef
25.
Lavallee DC, Chenok KE, Love RM, Petersen C, Holve E, Segal CD, Franklin PD. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Aff. 2016;35(4):575–82.CrossRef
26.
Ayers DC, Zheng H, Franklin PD. Integrating patient-reported outcomes into orthopaedic clinical practice: proof of concept from FORCE-TJR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3419–25.CrossRef
27.
van den Akker-Scheek I, Seldentuis A, Reininga IH, Stevens M. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:183.CrossRef
28.
Basch E, Artz D, Iasonos A, Speakman J, Shannon K, Lin K, Pun C, Yong H, Fearn P, Barz A, et al. Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(3):264–8.CrossRef
29.
Berry DL, Blumenstein BA, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Fann JR, Austin-Seymour M, Bush N, Karras BT, Lober WB, McCorkle R. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):1029–35.CrossRef
30.
Crane HM, Lober W, Webster E, Harrington RD, Crane PK, Davis TE, Kitahata MM. Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in an HIV clinic setting: the first 100 patients. Curr HIV Res. 2007;5(1):109–18.CrossRef
31.
Hale SA, Hertel J. Reliability and sensitivity of the Foot and Ankle Disability Index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2005;40(1):35–40.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40.PubMed
33.
Dorflinger LH, Knudsen JL. An introduction to patient reported outcome measures in quality assessment. Ugeskrift Laeger. 2015;177(19):V07140381.
34.
Parker C, Dewey M. Assessing research outcomes by postal questionnaire with telephone follow-up. TOTAL study group. Trial of occupational therapy and leisure. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29(6):1065–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Munich Ankle Questionnaire (MAQ): a self-assessment tool for a comprehensive evaluation of ankle disorders
Authors
Frederik Greve
Karl Friedrich Braun
Veronika Vitzthum
Michael Zyskowski
Michael Müller
Chlodwig Kirchhoff
Peter Biberthaler
Marc Beirer
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
European Journal of Medical Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2047-783X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-018-0344-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

European Journal of Medical Research 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Polymorphonuclear (PMN) elastase in patients after severe traumatic brain injury

Research

Occlusive dressing-induced secretomes influence the migration and proliferation of mesenchymal stem cells and fibroblasts differently

Research

Dynamic coronary roadmapping during percutaneous coronary intervention: a feasibility study

Research

Prospective randomized controlled trial in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with a new dynamic wrist orthosis

Research

A comparative study on the validity and reliability of anterior, medial, and posterior approaches for internal fixation in the repair of fractures of the coronoid process of the ulna

Research

Saliva samples as a source of DNA for high throughput genotyping: an acceptable and sufficient means in improvement of risk estimation throughout mammographic diagnostics