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.

Estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a comparison of several risk scores: the Cohorte Lausannoise study.

To compare in the Swiss population the results of several scores estimating the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This was a single-center, cross-sectional study conducted between 2003 and 2006 in Lausanne, Switzerland. Overall, 3,251 women and 2,937 men, aged 35-75 years, were assessed, of which 5,760 (93%) were free from diabetes and included in the current study. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes was assessed using seven different risk scores, including clinical data with or without biological data. Participants were considered to be eligible for primary prevention according to the thresholds provided for each score. The results were then extrapolated to the Swiss population of the same sex and age. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increased with age in all scores. The prevalence of participants at high risk ranged between 1.6 and 24.9% in men and between 1.1 and 15.7% in women. Extrapolated to the Swiss population of similar age, the overall number of participants at risk, and thus susceptible to intervention, ranged between 46,708 and 636,841. In addition, scores that included the same clinical variables led to a significantly different prevalence of participants at risk (4.2% [95% CI 3.4-5.0] vs. 12.8% [11.5-14.1] in men and 2.9% [2.4-3.6] vs. 6.0% [5.2-6.9] in women). CONCLUSIONS; The prevalence of participants at risk for developing type 2 diabetes varies considerably according to the scoring system used. To adequately prevent type 2 diabetes, risk-scoring systems must be validated for each population considered.