Scales on Quality of Life in patients with spinal cord injury: integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies evaluating the Quality of Life of individuals with spinal cord injury using different research tools demonstrate that the Quality of Life scores are considered low both in national and international studies. The objective of this review was to characterize the international scientific production about the most used scales to assess Quality of Life in patients with spinal cord injury. We examined articles on Quality of Life of patients with spinal cord injury published over the last 5 years and indexed in the National Library of Medicine (PUBMED). During this period, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were conducted in the United States, five articles were published in Australia, and four in Canada. Brazil, France, Holland, India, Japan, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland contributed with one study each. The scientific articles were published in 13 high impact factor journals. Seven different instruments to assess Quality of Life were used in the studies: Satisfaction with Life Scale, Short Form (36) Health Survey, The Brief Version of the WHO Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF), Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale, Life Situation Questionnaire-Revised, Quality of Well-Being Scale and the SF-12® Health Survey. The articles examined underscore the impact of spinal cord injury in the Quality of Life of patients, demonstrating how this condition impairs their lives, mainly socially, but followed by the physical aspects. Despite the studies have different goals they all acknowledge that further studies are necessary in order to determine the Quality of Life of patients with spinal cord injury. Specific instruments should be chosen or developed and validated in order to fulfill this purpose.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".