Critical evaluation of outcome scales to assess outcome after lateral ankle ligament repair

Introduction: Several scores are commonly used to evaluate patients' postoperative satisfaction after lateral ankle ligament repair, including: AOFAS, FAAM, CAIT and CAIS. Comparing published studies in the literature is difficult, as the same patient can have markedly different results depending on which scoring system is used. The current study aims to address this gap in the literature by developing a system to compare these tests, to allow better analysis and comparison of published studies. Patients and methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 47 patients following lateral ankle ligament repair using a modified Broström-Gould technique. All patients were operated between 2005 and 2010 by a single surgeon and followed the same post operative rehabilitation protocol. Six patients were excluded from the study because of concomitant surgery. Patients were assessed by an independent observer. We used the Pearson correlation coefficient to analyse the concordance of the scores, as well as scatter plots to assess the linear relationship between them. Results: A linear distribution between the scores was found when the results were analysed using scatter plots. We were thus able to use the Pearson correlation coefficient to evaluate the relationship between each of the different postoperative scores. The correlation was found to be above 0.5 in all cases except for the comparison between the CAIT and the FAAM for the activities of daily living (0.39). We were, therefore, able to compare the results obtained and assess the relative concordance of the scoring systems. The results showed that the more specific the scale is, the worst the score is and inversely. So the CAIT and the CAIS appeared to be more severe than the AOFAS and the FAAM measuring the activities of daily living. The sports subscale of the FAAM demonstrated intermediate results. Conclusion: This study outlines a system to compare different postoperative scores commonly used to evaluate outcome after ankle stabilization surgery. The impact of this study is that it makes comparison of published studies easier, even though they use a variety of different clinical scores, thus facilitating better outcome analysis of operative techniques.

Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis (ADAD) vs. Health of Nation Outcome Scale for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) in clinical outcome measurement.

BACKGROUND: The Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis (ADAD) and Health of Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) are both measures of outcome for adolescent mental health services. AIMS: To compare the ADAD with HoNOSCA; to examine their clinical usefulness. METHODS: Comparison of the ADAD and HoNOSCA outcome measures of 20 adolescents attending a psychiatric day care unit. RESULTS: ADAD change was positively correlated with HoNOSCA change. HoNOSCA assesses the clinic's day-care programme more positively than the ADAD. The ADAD detects a group for which the mean score remains unchanged whereas HoNOSCA does not. CONCLUSIONS: A good convergent validity emerges between the two assessment tools. The ADAD allows an evidence-based assessment and generally enables a better subject discrimination than HoNOSCA. HoNOSCA gives a less refined evaluation but is more economic in time and possibly more sensitive to change. Both assessment tools give useful information and enabled the Day-care Unit for Adolescents to rethink the process of care and of outcome, which benefited both the institution and the patients.