Multi‐item outcome measures for lateral ligament injury of the ankle: a structured review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and review evidence relating to the measurement properties of published multi-item outcome measures for the conservative management of lateral ligament injuries of the ankle. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were used to identify measures, which were then assessed against pre-defined criteria relating to development, item content, reliability, validity and responsiveness. RESULTS: Seven disease-specific measures of ankle status [Ankle Joint Functional Assessment Tool, Clinical Trauma Severity Score, Composite Inversion Injury Scale, Kaikkonen Functional Scale (KFS), Karlsson Ankle Function Score (KAFS), Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), and the Point System] and two generic measures of health (McGill Pain Questionnaire, Sickness Impact Profile) met the review inclusion criteria. While all measures had been used in acute injuries, only two had also been applied during later stages of recovery (>6 months). The studies covered a comprehensive range of graded ligament injuries. Expert opinion dominated item generation for all measures. All measures lack evidence of test-retest or internal consistency reliability in patients with ankle sprain. Several measures were assessed for validity through comparison with other measures, but there was limited evidence of construct validity and no formal assessment of responsiveness for any measure. CONCLUSION: The disappointing lack of evidence for measurement properties suggests that any measure should be used with caution until appropriate evidence is provided. On the basis of limited evidence, the KFS offers the most promising approach to a combined clinician- and patient-assessment of ankle function, and the KAFS or OMAS if a patient-assessed evaluation of function is required.
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 | 0.013 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".