Comparison between an electronic version of the foot and ankle outcome score and the standard paper version: A randomized multicenter study

To prove the equivalence of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) in the printed (PFAOS) vs the electronic (EFAOS) form in a multicenter randomized study. Overall, 227 patients with ages ranging from 20 to 79 years from 16 dedicated foot and ankle centers were included. Patients were randomized into either a ‘paper first’ group (P-F group, n = 113) or an ‘electronic device (tablet computer) first’ group (E-F group, n = 114). The first evaluation either by paper (P-F group) or tablet (E-F group) was followed by a second evaluation the following day. The difference between the PFAOS and EFAOS results in each group was calculated and analyzed. To evaluate the benefit of each methodology, the time consumed per evaluation was compared and patients were asked which methodology they preferred and which was the easiest to use. There were no significant differences in age or sex between the groups. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value of 0.934 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.912–0.950, P < .001) was confirmed in PFAOS and EFAOS, showing a significant correlation between the 2 methodologies. EFAOS was completed in a shorter amount of time than PFAOS. The majority of patients agreed that EFAOS was easier to complete than PFAOS. The paper or electronic forms of the Korean adaptation of FAOS were considered equivalent. The shorter time of completion and the preference for the electronic version over paper by patients deems the electronic FAOS a promising option to consider in future.