WOMAC and SF-36: instruments for evaluating the health-related quality of life of elderly people with total hip arthroplasty. A descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES: Quality-of-life results have increasingly been evaluated among patients undergoing joint replacements. The objective of this study was to compare two assessment instruments for health-related quality of life (one generic and the other specific), among elderly patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional descriptive study in a reference hospital in the region of Campinas. METHODS: The subjects were 88 elderly outpatients aged 60 years or over who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty. Two instruments for assessing health-related quality of life were applied: the generic Medical Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the specific Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Cronbach's alpha and the ceiling and floor effects of the instruments were evaluated. RESULTS: The scores from both instruments showed that issues of a physical nature affected these elderly people's quality of life most. The pain and stiffness dimensions of WOMAC showed ceiling effects and only the functional capacity and pain dimensions of the SF-36 did not show the ceiling effect. The SF-36 presented floor effects in the dimensions of physical and emotional aspects. Cronbach's alpha was considered satisfactory in both instruments (α > 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The floor and ceiling effects that were observed suggest that these instruments may present some limitations in detecting changes to the majority of the SF-36 dimensions, except for functional capacity and pain, and to the pain and stiffness dimensions of WOMAC, when applied to elderly people with total hip arthroplasty.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".