Patient preference in a crossover clinical trial of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: face validity of self-report questionnaire ratings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze correlational validity of self-report responses regarding patient preference between 2 drugs at the conclusion of a crossover double-blind clinical trial in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip. METHODS: Patients were randomized to 6 weeks' treatment of diclofenac/misoprostol or acetaminophen, followed by crossover to 6 weeks of the other drug. Patient preference was queried at the final visit: "Please compare control of your arthritis during the first and second periods as 'much better' or 'better' in the first period, 'no different' or 'better' or 'much better' in the second period." Patient preference ratings were evaluated in comparisons with 4 independent self-report measures within each treatment period: (1) change in Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) questionnaire scores; (2) change in pain visual analog scale (VAS) on a multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ); (3) patient ratings of drug efficacy; and (4) patient report of change in arthritis status, as well as investigator ratings of the more efficacious drug. RESULTS: Among 173 patients, diclofenac/misoprostol was rated as "much better" by 54 and "better" by 45, acetaminophen was rated as "better" by 18 and "much better" by 17, and "no difference" by 39 patients. Spearman rank correlations for patient preferences were significant for changes in WOMAC scores, pain VAS, and independent patient ratings of drug efficacy and changes in arthritis status within each treatment period, as well as with physician ratings of the more efficacious drug (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Significant correlational validity is documented for patient self-report of preferences between 2 drugs compared to independent measures within each treatment period in this crossover clinical trial in patients with OA of the knee or hip.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".