The Pediatric Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (pTESS): Validation of a Self-reported Functional Outcomes Tool for Children with Extremity Tumors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The physical function of children with sarcoma after surgery has not been studied explicitly. This paucity of research is partly because of the lack of a sufficiently sensitive pediatric functional measure. The goal of this study was to establish and validate a standardized measure of physical function in pediatric patients with extremity tumors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the best format and content for new upper- and lower-extremity measures of physical function in the pediatric population? (2) Do the new measures exhibit floor and/or ceiling effects, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability? (3) Are the new measures valid? METHODS: In Phase 1, interviews with 17 consecutive children and adolescents with bone tumors were conducted to modify the format and content of draft versions of the pediatric Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (pTESS). In Phase 2, the pTESS was formally translated into French. In Phase 3, 122 participants between 7 and 17.9 years old with malignant or benign-aggressive bone tumors completed the limb-specific measure on two occasions. Older adolescents also completed the adult TESS. Floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Feedback from interviews resulted in the removal, addition, and modification of draft items, and the pTESS-Leg and pTESS-Arm questionnaires were finalized. Both versions exhibited no floor or ceiling effects and high internal consistency (α > 0.92). The test-retest reliability was excellent for the pTESS-Leg (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97) and good for the pTESS-Arm (ICC = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.61-0.96). Known-group validity (ability to discriminate between groups) was demonstrated by lower mean pTESS-Leg scores for participants using gait aids or braces (mean = 68; SD = 21) than for those who did not (mean = 87; SD = 11; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between pTESS arm scores among respondents using a brace (n = 5; mean = 73; SD = 11) and those without (n = 22; mean = 83; SD = 19; p = 0.13). To evaluate construct validity, we tested a priori hypotheses. The duration since chemotherapy correlated moderately with higher pTESS-Leg scores (r = 0.4; p < 0.001) but not with pTESS-Arm scores (r = 0.1; p = 0.80), and the duration since tumor resection correlated moderately with higher pTESS-Leg scores (r = 0.4; p < 0.001) but not pTESS-Arm scores (r = 0.2; p = 0.4). Higher VAS scores (that is, it was harder to do things) antecorrelated with both pTESS versions (pTESS-Leg: r = -0.7; p < 0.001; pTESS-Arm: r = -0.8; p < 0.001). To assess criterion validity, we compared the pTESS with the current "gold standard" (adult TESS). Among adolescents, strong correlations were observed between the TESS and pTESS-Leg (r = 0.97, p < 0.001) and pTESS-Arm (r = 0.9, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Both pTESS versions exhibited no floor or ceiling effects and had high internal consistency. The pTESS-Leg demonstrated excellent reliability and validity, and the pTESS-Arm demonstrated good reliability and reasonable validity. The pTESS is recommended for cross-sectional evaluation of self-reported physical function in pediatric patients with bone tumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, outcome measurement development.
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 | 0,005 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».