Comparative responsiveness of measures of pain and function after total hip replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the responsiveness of the Functional Assessment System (FAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) scheduled for total hip replacement. METHOD: Twenty patients with a mean age at surgery of 72.6 years, with primary OA of the hip, were investigated preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively with the FAS, WOMAC, and SF-36. The responsiveness was calculated as standardized response mean, effect size, and relative efficiency. RESULTS: The pain and function scores of WOMAC and SF-36 showed greater responsiveness than FAS at 3 months. These differences remained at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. The differences between these 3 outcome measures were found to be similar using several methods for calculating responsiveness. CONCLUSION: Self-administered questionnaires like WOMAC and SF-36 are more responsive measures of pain and function than range of motion, performance tests, and observer-administered questions (FAS) following total hip replacement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".