Inter-rater reliability of the McKenzie System of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy in the examination of the knee
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The McKenzie System of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is a widely used method of classification and management of musculoskeletal problems. Although MDT has been investigated for its reliability and efficacy in the management of spinal pain, few studies have evaluated the system when applying it to musculoskeletal problems in the extremities, in particular the knee. The purpose of this study was to investigate the inter-rater reliability of MDT when classifying clinical vignettes describing patients with musculoskeletal knee pain. METHODS: This study was divided into two phases. First, 10 clinicians experienced in the use of MDT were recruited to write a total of 60 clinical vignettes based upon the initial assessment of their past patients with knee pain. Second, six different MDT raters were recruited to rate 53 selected vignettes and reliability was determined using Fleiss Kappa. RESULTS: = 0.72). There was no statistically significant difference between therapists with different levels of training. DISCUSSION: MDT demonstrated acceptable reliability among trained raters to classify clinical vignettes describing patients with musculoskeletal knee pain. To generalize the use of the system to more users, future research should continue to investigate the reliability of MDT using raters with lower levels of training and experience and assess reliability in real patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it