Which questionnaire is more effective for follow-up diagnosed subacromial impingement syndrome? A comparison of the responsiveness of SDQ, SPADI and WORC index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare responsiveness for the two region specific questionnaires Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ) and Shoulder Pain Disability Index (SPADI) and the disease specific Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index in subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS) receiving physical therapy or subacromial corticosteroid injection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients with SIS diagnosed participated in this study. All the patients were provided either physical therapy or subacromial corticosteroid injection treatment. The SDQ, the SPADI and WORC index were assessed both at the beginning and after the 3rd month of treatment. The responsiveness of the three questionnaires was compared by using the effect size (ES), the standardized responsiveness mean (SRM) and Guyatt's method. RESULTS: For both treatment groups there was no statistical difference observed between the pre- and post treatment measurement results versus improvement differences (p> 0.05). SDQ (ES=0.94; SRM=1.14; Guyatt value=0.95), SPADI (ES=1.55; SRM=2.14; Guyatt value=1.08), WORC index (ES=1.37; SRM=1.70; Guyatt value=1.15) were highly responsive for SIS. CONCLUSIONS: The SDQ, the SPADI and the WORC index are suitable for measuring changes in patients with SIS. Of these three indices, the SDQ and the SPADI are more suitable for a rapid assessment whereas the WORC index is better in cases where a more detailed assessment including the psychological impact created by the functional status needs to be assessed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".