A comparative study of telephone versus onsite completion of the WOMAC 3.0 osteoarthritis index.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Outcome assessment in clinical trials using the Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC 3.0) Osteoarthritis Index is traditionally achieved through self-administration of the Index. However, in other areas of clinical measurement, telephone administration has been shown to be a reliable method of acquiring data that are both accurate and complete. To address this issue in knee osteoarthritis (OA), we conducted a comparative study of telephone administration by interviewer of WOMAC LK3.0 versus onsite self-completion at the hospital. METHODS: Fifty consenting patients with knee OA were randomized to complete the WOMAC LK3.0 Index by telephone interview one day, followed by onsite completion the following day, or vice versa. Neither patients nor interviewers had access to any prior scores. RESULTS: The mean age of the 50 patients was 66.3 years (range 44-82); 34 (68%) were female and 16 (32%) male. There was excellent agreement between the mean office and telephone scores, with mean differences for the WOMAC LK3.0 pain, stiffness, and function subscale scores and total score of 0.09, 0.12, 0.78, and 0.98, respectively. These differences were well within the respective protocol defined equivalence criteria of +/- 1.7, +/- 0.9, +/- 6.4, and +/- 9.1, and represented differences from office scores of 0.9, 2.6, 2.4, and 2.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of telephone interviews for the WOMAC LK3.0 Index is a valid method of obtaining OA outcome measurements. These observations have important implications for designing data acquisition strategies for future OA clinical trials and for longterm observational studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".