Validity of the Leg-O-Meter, an Instrument to Measure Leg Circumference
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objective of this study was to validate the Leg-O-Meter measure against the clinical assessment of edema made by physicians using data from a 1-year follow-up study of unselected patients with chronic venous disease of the leg (CVDL). The Leg-O-Meter consists of a tape measure fixed to a stand attached to a small board on which the patient is in standing position. Its reliability has been shown to be above 97%. Data from the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiologic and Economic Study (VEINES) were used: 1,521 patients from France, Belgium, Italy, and Quebec (Canada) who spontaneously consulted a physician between 1994 and 1995 with a complaint resulting from venous problems of the legs were included. Baseline variables included leg circumference measurements using the Leg-O-Meter; physicians were also asked to diagnose edema and report it as present or absent on each leg. Clinical edema and leg circumferences were assessed again 3 to 6 months after the baseline visit and 12 months after baseline. The tape measure of the Leg-O-Meter was fixed at 13 cm from the floor. The first and last assessments were used to evaluate the variation in edema during the follow-up period. Clinical variation in edema status was assessed as follows: improved, if edema was diagnosed at baseline but not at the final visit; unchanged, if edema was diagnosed at both visits; and worsened, if there was no diagnosis of edema at baseline but a diagnosis of edema was made at the final visit. Variation in measured edema was classified as improved if there was a decrease in leg circumference of more than 1 cm between baseline and final evaluation; unchanged, if the difference in leg circumference was between plus or minus 1 cm between the 2 assessments; and worsened, if there was an increase in leg circumference greater than 1 cm between the 2 assessments. Data-driven cut-off points were also used: 1.3 cm and 1.5 cm. Sensitivity and specificity of the Leg-O-Meter using physician diagnosis as "gold standard" were calculated. In addition, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were calculated by using the 3 different leg circumference cut-off points in order to determine the accuracy of the Leg-O-Meter to detect changes in edema. The overall accuracy of the Leg-O-Meter was 0.84 (standard error (se) = 0.06). Accuracy was greater when 1.5 cm was used as a cut-point. The Leg-O-Meter is an objective, reliable, and standardized instrument to assess patients over time. A change of 1.5 cm between 2 measurements gives a valid estimate of improvement or worsening of edema, when compared to physicians' diagnosis. The Leg-O-Meter is also sensitive to any changes in leg circumferences, which is an advantage over the clinical evaluation of edema.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».