MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2002236678 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a7f499

Ancillary Outcome Measures for Assessment of Individuals With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

2013· review· en· W2002236678 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.

Notice bibliographique

RevueSpine · 2013
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Établissements canadiensToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationMyelopathyFunctional Independence MeasurePhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleOutcome (game theory)MEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPsychiatrySpinal cord

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVE: To identify suitable outcome measures that can be used to quantify neurological and functional impairment in the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CSM is the leading cause of acquired spinal cord disability, causing varying degrees of neurological impairment which impact on independence and quality of life. Because this impairment can have a heterogeneous presentation, a single outcome measure cannot define the broad range of deficits seen in this population. Therefore, it is necessary to define outcome measures that characterize the deficits with greater validity and sensitivity. METHODS: This review was conducted in 3 stages. Stage I: To evaluate the current use of outcome measures in CSM, PubMed was searched using the name of the outcome measure and the common abbreviation combined with "CSM" or "myelopathy." Stage II: Having identified a lack of appropriate outcome measures, we constructed criteria by which measures appropriate for assessing the various aspects of CSM could be identified. Stage III: A second literature search was then conducted looking at specified outcomes that met these criteria. All literature was reviewed to determine specificity and psychometric properties of outcomes for CSM. RESULTS: Nurick grade, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36), and Neck Disability Index were the most commonly cited measures. The Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Myelopathy Disability Index have been validated in the CSM population with multiple studies, whereas the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale score, Nurick grade, and European Myelopathy Scale each had only one study assessing psychometric characteristics. No validity, reliability, or responsiveness studies were found for the VAS or Neck Disability Index in the CSM population. CONCLUSION: We recommend that the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale, Nurick grade, Myelopathy Disability Index, Neck Disability Index, and 30-Meter Walk Test are most appropriate for the assessment of CSM. However, 6 additional outcome measures (QuickDASH, Berg Balance Scale, Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength Sensibility and Prehension, Grip Dynamometer, and GAITRite Analysis) were identified, which provide complementary assessments for CSM. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: There does not exist a single or composite of outcome instruments that measures myelopathy impairment, function/disability, and participation that have also demonstrated reliability, validity, and responsiveness in a CSM population. More work in the development and psychometric evaluation of new or existing measures is necessary to identify the ideal composite of measures to be used in the clinical and research settings. The mJOA, Nurick grade, NDI, MDI, and 30MWT should be adopted in any clinical practice that treats CSM both for screening and clinical follow-up. We propose that clinicians and researchers consider using the ancillary measures identified, such as the QuickDASH, Berg Balance Scale, GRASSP version 1.0, Grip Strength, and GAITRite Analysis. It is highly recommended that baseline and follow-up measurements should be performed in patients with CSM.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,974
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,115
Tête enseignante GPT0,407
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · 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