MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1974079627 · doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2135-0

The New Knee Society Knee Scoring System

2011· article· en· W1974079627 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Établissements canadiensLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineArthroplastyPhysical therapyOxford knee scoreKnee JointTotal knee arthroplastyRating systemScoring systemRating scaleSports medicineOrthopedic surgeryStair climbingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryOsteoarthritis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In 1989, The Knee Society Clinical Rating System [3] was developed as a simple, but objective scoring system to rate the knee and patient’s functional abilities such as walking and stair climbing before and after TKA. Since the scoring system did not include assessment of radiographs, The Knee Society endorsed a method to evaluate radiographs [2]. The Knee Society Clinical Rating System has been the most popular method of tracking and reporting outcomes after total and partial knee arthroplasty worldwide. However, the reliability, responsiveness, and validity of the original score have been challenged. In addition, it became clear over time that there were ambiguities and deficiencies with the original Knee Society Clinical Rating System that challenged its utility and validity in our contemporary patients, who often have expectations, demands, and functional requirements that are different from those of prior generations of patients who underwent knee arthroplasty. The Knee Society therefore embarked on a complete review of the previous system. The project started more than 3 years ago and involved Knee Society members from 18 institutions in the United States and Canada; these individuals contributed more than 500 cases of both preoperative and postoperative TKA. The magnitude of this exhaustive project involved a multidisciplinary team of arthroplasty surgeons, epidemiologists, and statisticians. The prior objective knee score was amplified from the prior Knee Society score to incorporate current knee arthroplasty clinical parameters. The functional component of the new score was developed on the basis of comprehensive inventories of the activities and observations of 101 patients at five major knee arthroplasty centers who completed a 120-item survey, which was ultimately condensed down to the current assessment tool. This assessment tool was then included in the validation process at the 18 participating centers. The final scoring system was then approved by the Knee Society Scoring Committee. The new Knee Society Knee Scoring System is both physician and patient derived. It includes versions to be administered preoperatively (Appendix 1) and postoperatively (Appendix 2). It has an initial assessment of demographic details, including an expanded Charnley functional classification [1]. The objective knee score, completed by the surgeon, includes a VAS score of pain walking on level ground and on stairs or inclines, as well as an assessment of alignment, ligament stability, and ROM, along with deductions for flexion contracture or extensor lag. Patients then record their satisfaction, functional activities, and expectations. Given the diverse activity profiles of many contemporary patients, the functional component of the score was improved to include a patient-specific survey, which evaluates features such as standard activities of daily living, patient-specific sports and recreational activities, patient satisfaction, and patient expectations. Portions of the original Knee Society Clinical Rating System have been integrated into the new version to maintain the integrity of the prior version of the Knee Society score. The new Knee Society Knee Scoring System has been developed and validated, in part, to better characterize the expectations, satisfaction, and physical activities of the younger and more diverse population of current patients undergoing TKA. The new score provides sufficient flexibility and depth to capture the diverse lifestyles and activities of our current patients. The score was validated in a thoughtful and methodical fashion confirming internal reliability and analyzed for differential item functioning [4]. The new Knee Society Scoring System is broadly applicable across sex, age, activity level, and implant type. In conclusion, the new Knee Society Scoring System is a validated and responsive method for assessing objective and subjective outcomes after total and partial knee arthroplasty, without the ambiguities of the prior scoring system. As physicians, clinical practices, and health systems become increasingly more responsible for reporting patient outcomes, the clear value of this new scoring system will become apparent. The new scoring system is available through application on the Knee Society Web site (http://www.kneesociety.org). Acknowledgments Special thanks to our contributing epidemiologists, statistician, support staff, and Knee Society members: Dianne Bryant, Bert Chewsworth, Alla Sikorskii, Adam Brekke, Priya Chadha, Salim Durrani, Sabir Ismaily, Daniel Daylamani, Denise Leon, Tad Vail, Michael Reis, Kevin Bozic, David Dalury, Terrance Gioe, Ray Wasielewski, Kim Bertin, Adolf Lombardi, Keith Berend, Steve Incavo, Carlos Lavernia, Michael Mont, Jay Rodrigo, Mark Pagnano, Dan Berry, Arlen Hanssen, David Lewallen, and Bassam Masri. The new Knee Society Knee Scoring System was reprinted with permission and © 2011 by The Knee Society.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,270
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,137
Tête enseignante GPT0,402
Écart entre enseignants0,265 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle