Does functional capacity evaluation predict recovery in workers’ compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are commonly used to determine return-to-work readiness and guide decision making following work related injury, yet little is known of their validity. The authors examined performance on the Isernhagen Work Systems' FCE as a predictor of timely and sustained recovery in workers' compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders. A secondary objective was to determine whether FCE is more predictive in claimants with specific injuries (that is, fracture) as compared to less specific, pain mediated disorders (that is, myofascial pain). METHODS: The authors performed a longitudinal study of 336 claimants with upper extremity disorders undergoing FCE. FCE indicators were maximum performance during handgrip and lift testing, and the number of tasks where performance was rated below required job demands. Outcomes investigated were days receiving time-loss benefits (a surrogate of return to work or work readiness) in the year following FCE, days until claim closure, and future recurrence defined as whether benefits restarted, the claim reopened, or a new upper extremity claim was filed. Cox and logistic regression were used to determine the prognostic effect of FCE crudely and after controlling for potential confounders. Analysis was performed separately on claimants with specific and pain mediated disorders. RESULTS: Most subjects (95%) experienced time-loss benefit suspension within one year following FCE. The one year recurrence rate was 39%. Higher lifting performance was associated with faster benefit suspension and claim closure, but explained little variation in these outcomes (r2 = 1.2-11%). No FCE indicators were associated with future recurrence after controlling for confounders. Results were similar between specific injury and less specific groups. CONCLUSIONS: Better FCE performance was a weak predictor of faster benefit suspension, and was unrelated to sustained recovery. FCE was no more predictive in claimants with specific pathology and injury than in those with more ambiguous, pain mediated conditions.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».