Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate minimal clinically important differences (MCID) of effects measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the lower extremities undergoing a comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation intervention. METHODS: A prospective cohort study assessed patients' health by the WOMAC at baseline (entry into the clinic) and at the 3 month followup, and by a transition questionnaire asking about the change of "health in general related to the OA joint" during that time period. The WOMAC section score differences between the "equal" group and the "slightly better" and "slightly worse" groups resulted in the MCID for improvement and for worsening. RESULTS: In total 192 patients were followed up. The MCID for improvement ranged from 0.80 to 1.01 points on the continuous WOMAC numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, reflecting changes of 17 to 22% of baseline scores. The MCID for worsening conditions ranged from 0.29 (6%) to 1.03 points (22%). In the transition reply subjectively unchanged patients reported a "pessimistic bias" of 0.35 to 0.51 points, except for the stiffness section. Both MCID and pessimistic bias showed regression to the mean and baseline dependency. CONCLUSION: The assessment of MCID using the transition method is a heuristic and valid strategy to detect particular rehabilitation effects in patients with OA of the lower extremities with the use of the WOMAC, and it is worth implementing. The size of the MCID and of the systematic bias is comparable to that assessed by other methods and in other therapeutic settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".