Table 3.

Characteristics of studies

	Population
Article, PROM and Language	Number of participants (n)	Age mean (±, range) (yrs)	Gender (% female)	Injury Information	Follow up duration mean (±, range)	Method of Collection
Buker et al. (2018) OMAS, Turkish	91	41.54 (±13.28, 20–60)	30.8%	Operatively managed ankle #s	27.92 months (±8.94, range N/S)	Initial in clinic, follow up in clinic or on telephone
Garratt et al. (2018) OMAS, Norwegian	Cohort 959, 299 for test-retest questionnaire	57.5 (± N/S, 22.2–91.2)	56.8%	Operatively managed ankle #s	Not specified, stated recruited over a 3 year period	At home via post
McPhail et al. (2014) A-FORM, English	Delphi panel – 8 Cohort - 41	36.8 (± N/S, 26.1–53.8)	27%	Operatively managed (46.3%) and non-operatively managed (53.7%) ankle #s	6–8 week post injury and at 12–16 weeks post injury	Either in clinic or at home via post
Olerud and Molander (1984) OMAS, Language N/S	90	N/S	N/S	Operatively managed ankle #s	N/S	N/S
Turhan et al. (2018) OMAS, Turkish	100	42.3 (±17.7, 16–81)	49%	Operatively (57%) and non-operatively managed (43%) ankle #s	4.3 years (± and range N/S)	N/S
Zelle et al. (2017) AAOS, Spanish	100 (83 returned 1st questionnaire, 63 returned 2nd questionnaire)	42.98 (± N/S,18–88)	41%	58 ankle #s, 5 talus #s, 1 Achilles tendon rupture, 11 calcaneus #s, 6 midfoot #s. 73 operatively managed and 27 non-operatively managed	3.97 months (±4.71 range N/S)	Initial at clinic or via post, follow up was via post.

Key: N/S = not specified, ± = standard deviation, # = fracture; shows the characteristics of the six studies included in this review. Table 4 shows the overall methodological quality for each measurement property assessed in each of the articles using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist [28]. The four articles which underwent the second review process for both risk of bias assessment and data extraction, following COSMIN guidance, are marked on the table with an asterisk