Table III.
Clubfoot-specific outcome tools presented in chronological order, with most recent first.
| Outcome instrument (year) | Parameters assessed | Descriptive/ Functional/ Prognostic | Stage at treatment to be used | Repeatability/predictive value | Studies, n* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBS tool18 (2019) | Foot position in standing Prechosen gait parameters Ankle ROM Subtalar ROM |
D/F | Walking age | Interobserver agreement: 0.9319 | 1 |
| Assessing Clubfoot Treatment tool40 (2017) | Ankle ROM Pain Footwear Parental PROM |
D/F | Walking age | Detecting need for further intervention: Sensitivity: 79.2% Specificity: 100%23,25 |
2 |
| Evertor score41 (2014) | Ankle ROM and subjective muscle strength | D/F/P | After initial treatment | Predicting recurrence and need for further intervention PPV and NPV |
4 |
| Bangla clubfoot tool assessment23,42 (2014) | Parental PROM of foot appearance, footwear, pain, function Prechosen gait parameters Foot position in standing Ankle ROM |
D/F/P | Walking age | Predicting need for referral for further treatment: Interobserver agreement: 0.92 Sensitivity: 79.2% Specificity: 79.5% 24,25 |
4 |
| Bhaskar relapse assessment tool43 (2013) | Ankle and foot ROM Prechosen gait parameters Foot position |
D/F | Walking age | 3 | |
| IMAR Clubfoot Scale25 (2009) | Ankle ROM Foot position in standing Foot and calf appearance Gait (GAITRite system) Paedobarograph (dynamic and static) Parental PROM |
D/F | Walking age | Interobserver agreement: 0.79635 | 2 |
| Richards Classification44 (2008) | Ankle ROM Need for surgical correction |
D/F | After initial treatment | 3 | |
| Clubfoot Assessment Protocol21 (2005) | Ankle/foot ROM Muscle strength Foot position Prechosen gait parameters |
D/F | After initial treatment | Interobserver agreement range: 0.35 to 0.38 Interobserver agreement range: 0.54 to 1.0022 |
1 |
| International Clubfoot Study Group classification system31 (2003) | Foot position Ankle/foot ROM Muscle function Prechosen gait parameters Pain Angles from plain radiographs |
D/F | Walking age | Interobserver agreement: 0.7345 | 3 |
| Roye’s disease-specific instrument19 (2001) | Parental PROM of foot appearance, footwear, pain, function, gait | D/F/P | Walking age | Internal consistency reliability of 0.74 to 0.85 (Cronbach’s α)21
Predicting need for referral for further treatment: Sensitivity: 31.8% Specificity: 100%25 |
5 |
| Ezra clubfoot score46 (2000) | Ankle/subtalar ROM Hind/forefoot position in standing Tibialis Anterior function Prechosen gait parameters Footwear Functional limitations Pain Parental PROM |
D/F | Walking age | 3 | |
| Pirani Score13 (1999) | Hind/mid/forefoot position Ankle dorsiflexion |
D | Before, during and after initial correction | Interobserver agreement: 0.909
Pearson r : 0.8947 |
82 |
| Diméglio Score14 (1995) | Hind/forefoot position Ankle/subtalar ROM |
D/F | Before, during and after initial correction | Interobserver agreement: 0.839
Pearson r : 0.8548 |
36 |
| Catterall Classification16 (1991) | Hind/forefoot position | D | During treatment | Interobserver agreement range: 0.15 to 0.448 | 4 |
| Harrold and Walker Classification15 (1983) | Ankle ROM Hindfoot position | D | Pretreatment | Interobserver agreement range: 0.4 to 0.748 | 2 |
| Laaveg and Ponseti functional rating system17 (1980) | Parental PROM Pain Foot position in standing Ankle/foot ROM Prechosen gait parameters |
D/F | Walking age | 5 |
*
Absolute number out of 124 papers
PBS, Pirani/Böhm/Sinclair; PROM, parental and child reported outcomes; ROM, range of motion