MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988782937 · doi:10.1177/1071100714565902

Patient Expectation and Satisfaction as Measures of Operative Outcome in End-Stage Ankle Arthritis

2015· article· en· W1988782937 on OpenAlex
Alastair Younger, Kevin Wing, Mark Glazebrook, Timothy R. Daniels, Peter Dryden, Karl‐André Lalonde, Hubert Wong, Hong Qian, Murray J. Penner

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaIsland HealthDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkle replacementAnklePatient satisfactionPhysical therapyConfidence intervalPatient-reported outcomeSurgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current operative outcome scales are based on pain and function, such as the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS). Outcomes based on patient expectation and satisfaction may be more useful. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate associations between patient expectation, satisfaction, and outcome scores for ankle fusion and total ankle replacement (TAR). METHODS: In total, 654 ankles in 622 patients were analyzed at a mean of 61 months. Patient expectation and satisfaction with symptoms were quantified pre- and postoperatively using the Musculoskeletal Outcomes Data Evaluation and Management Scale questionnaires from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, while function was quantified using the AOS. RESULTS: Patients undergoing ankle replacement had a higher preoperative expectation score (79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 77-81) compared with those undergoing ankle fusion (72; 95% CI, 68-75). Preoperative expectation scores correlated weakly with AOS scores (R (2) = 0.02) and with the "expectations met" score for ankle fusion (R (2) = 0.07) but not for ankle replacement (R (2) < 0.01). Satisfaction scores were similar for ankle fusion and ankle replacement at follow-up, but a greater number of ankle replacement patients showed improvement in satisfaction (84% vs 74%, P < .005). Higher satisfaction at final follow-up was associated with better expectations met and greater improvement in AOS outcome scores for both ankle fusion and ankle replacement. Expectations met and AOS scores at follow-up correlated for ankle fusion (R (2) = 0.38, P < .0001) and ankle replacement (R (2) = 0.31, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing TAR had higher expectation scores prior to surgery than those undergoing ankle fusion. Expectations may be more likely to be met by ankle replacement compared with ankle fusion. Ankle replacement patients were more likely to report improved satisfaction scores after surgery. Preoperative expectation scores showed little correlation with preoperative AOS scores, indicating that expectation is independent of pain and function. However, postoperative expectations met and satisfaction scores were strongly associated with AOS scores at follow-up. Better preoperative patient education may change expectations and requires study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective cohort study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it