Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We thank Dr. Diercks for his valuable comments regarding our article.1Marquardt B. Witt K.A. Liem D. Steinbeck J. Potzl W. Arthroscopic Bankart repair in traumatic anterior shoulder instability using a suture anchor technique.Arthroscopy. 2006; 22: 931-936Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar He may certainly be correct in his concerns about the use of the Constant score as a measurement tool for patients with shoulder instability in our study. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index indeed appears to be a sensitive measurement tool in these patients, because it focuses on the patient’s own perception of changes in health status.2Kirkley A. Griffin S. McLintock H. Ng L. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability—The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI).Am J Sports Med. 1998; 26: 764-772Crossref PubMed Scopus (330) Google Scholar However, its use in the current literature is not very widespread. The Constant score assesses pain, function, range of motion, and strength and thus combines subjective and objective parameters. It is of common use in clinical studies dealing with shoulder instability and therefore allows good comparison of our own results.3Fabbriciani C. Milano G. Demontis A. Fadda S. Ziranu F. Mulas P.D. Arthroscopic versus open treatment of Bankart lesion of the shoulder: A prospective randomized study.Arthroscopy. 2004; 20: 456-462Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (242) Google Scholar, 4Gartsman G.M. Roddey T.S. Hammerman S.M. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability Two to five-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82: 991-1003PubMed Google Scholar, 5Rhee Y.G. Ha J.H. Cho N.S. Anterior shoulder stabilization in collision athletes: Arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair.Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 979-985Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar That was the main rationale for our use of this score in our evaluation.A preoperative Constant score of about 60 points seems to be widely reported in the current literature.3Fabbriciani C. Milano G. Demontis A. Fadda S. Ziranu F. Mulas P.D. Arthroscopic versus open treatment of Bankart lesion of the shoulder: A prospective randomized study.Arthroscopy. 2004; 20: 456-462Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (242) Google Scholar, 4Gartsman G.M. Roddey T.S. Hammerman S.M. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability Two to five-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82: 991-1003PubMed Google Scholar In our experience, recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability usually results in a severe loss of strength, loss of motion as a result of apprehension, and thus, restriction in sports and activities of daily living, which finally results in a Constant score between 55 and 65 points. This is even true for a young patient population of collision athletes.5Rhee Y.G. Ha J.H. Cho N.S. Anterior shoulder stabilization in collision athletes: Arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair.Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 979-985Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar We thank Dr. Diercks for his valuable comments regarding our article.1Marquardt B. Witt K.A. Liem D. Steinbeck J. Potzl W. Arthroscopic Bankart repair in traumatic anterior shoulder instability using a suture anchor technique.Arthroscopy. 2006; 22: 931-936Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar He may certainly be correct in his concerns about the use of the Constant score as a measurement tool for patients with shoulder instability in our study. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index indeed appears to be a sensitive measurement tool in these patients, because it focuses on the patient’s own perception of changes in health status.2Kirkley A. Griffin S. McLintock H. Ng L. The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability—The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI).Am J Sports Med. 1998; 26: 764-772Crossref PubMed Scopus (330) Google Scholar However, its use in the current literature is not very widespread. The Constant score assesses pain, function, range of motion, and strength and thus combines subjective and objective parameters. It is of common use in clinical studies dealing with shoulder instability and therefore allows good comparison of our own results.3Fabbriciani C. Milano G. Demontis A. Fadda S. Ziranu F. Mulas P.D. Arthroscopic versus open treatment of Bankart lesion of the shoulder: A prospective randomized study.Arthroscopy. 2004; 20: 456-462Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (242) Google Scholar, 4Gartsman G.M. Roddey T.S. Hammerman S.M. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability Two to five-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82: 991-1003PubMed Google Scholar, 5Rhee Y.G. Ha J.H. Cho N.S. Anterior shoulder stabilization in collision athletes: Arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair.Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 979-985Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar That was the main rationale for our use of this score in our evaluation. A preoperative Constant score of about 60 points seems to be widely reported in the current literature.3Fabbriciani C. Milano G. Demontis A. Fadda S. Ziranu F. Mulas P.D. Arthroscopic versus open treatment of Bankart lesion of the shoulder: A prospective randomized study.Arthroscopy. 2004; 20: 456-462Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (242) Google Scholar, 4Gartsman G.M. Roddey T.S. Hammerman S.M. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability Two to five-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82: 991-1003PubMed Google Scholar In our experience, recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability usually results in a severe loss of strength, loss of motion as a result of apprehension, and thus, restriction in sports and activities of daily living, which finally results in a Constant score between 55 and 65 points. This is even true for a young patient population of collision athletes.5Rhee Y.G. Ha J.H. Cho N.S. Anterior shoulder stabilization in collision athletes: Arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair.Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 979-985Crossref PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar About “Arthroscopic Bankart Repair …”ArthroscopyVol. 23Issue 6PreviewAfter reading the recently published article by Marquardt et al.,1 I have some questions concerning the inclusion and the outcome measures that were used. The Constant score is used as an outcome measure by the authors. Kirkley et al.2,3 stated that this instrument may be useful for discriminating between patients with significant rotator cuff disease or osteoarthritis but it is not useful for patients with instability. In fact, in one study all of the patients with instability of the shoulder scored nearly perfectly (95 to 100) despite having problems of sufficient magnitude to request surgical intervention. Full-Text PDF
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 | 0,006 | 0,107 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,025 | 0,031 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,042 | 0,019 |
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 ».