MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998042359 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e3182945fe9

What Outcomes Are Important for Patients After Pelvic Trauma? Subjective Responses and Psychometric Analysis of Three Published Pelvic-Specific Outcome Instruments

2013· article· en· W1998042359 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyCeiling effectPatient-reported outcomeTrauma centerPelvisDistressConstruct validityPelvic fracturePelvic floor dysfunctionPelvic floorInjury Severity ScoreQuality of life (healthcare)Poison controlSurgeryInjury preventionEmergency medicinePatient satisfactionRetrospective cohort studyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The measurement of functional outcomes in pelvic fracture patients remains difficult for authors. The authors aimed to test the construct validity, respondent burden, floor and ceiling effects, and patient perception of 3 previously published pelvic outcome questionnaires. DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Level I Trauma Center. PATIENTS: Those with surgically treated Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) B and C pelvic ring disruption at greater than 12 months after treatment. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Majeed Pelvic Score, Orlando Pelvic Score, Iowa Pelvis Score, Short Form-36, and Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA). RESULTS: The authors recruited 38 patients, 15 OTA C and 23 OTA B fractures, who had a mean of 57 months from surgery (13-115 months). Patients cited recreational/mobility difficulty (30), emotional stress and family strain (24), employment and financial difficulty (17), sleep disturbance and anxiety (9), and sexual function (6) as the most important consequences of their injuries. Each of the 3 pelvic outcome questionnaires showed a high correlation with the Physical Component Score of the SF-36, and both indices of the SMFA. None had a high correlation with the Mental Component Score of the SF-36, indicating that these scores do not capture psychologic distress and well-being, social functioning, and overall vitality. All 3 questionnaires demonstrated ceiling effects, with 21%, 18%, and 15% of respondents reporting the highest possible scores on the Iowa, Majeed, and Orlando scores, respectively. The time for completion was 3.6 ± 0.4 minutes for the Iowa score, 7.4 ± 0.4 for the Orlando score (not including radiographic assessment), and 2.6 ± 0.2 for the Majeed score. Fifteen patients preferred the Iowa score, 12 the Orlando score, and 11 the Majeed instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Three previously published pelvic outcome instruments were found to have strong construct validity based on correlation with the Physical Component Score of the SF-36 and both indices of the SMFA. Subjects identified mental and emotional outcomes as important consequences of their injury; however, none of the pelvic questionnaires measure these domains, as they all correlate poorly with the Mental Component Score of the SF-36. Ceiling effects limit the utility of the all 3 current instruments, and their reliability and responsiveness over time remain unknown. No currently available outcome instrument seems to captures all of the important consequences of these injuries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · 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