Instruments to assess patients with rotator cuff pathology: a systematic review of measurement properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to obtain an overview of the methodological quality of studies on the measurement properties of rotator cuff questionnaires and to describe how well various aspects of the design and statistical analyses of studies on measurement properties are performed. METHODS: A systematic review of published studies on the measurement properties of rotator cuff questionnaires was performed. Two investigators independently rated the quality of the studies using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist. This checklist was developed in an international Delphi consensus study. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, in which two measurement instruments were evaluated, namely the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index and the Rotator Cuff Quality-of-Life Measure. The methodological quality of the included studies was adequate on some properties (construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, internal consistency, and translation) but need to be improved on other aspects. The most important methodological aspects that need to be developed are as follows: measurement error, content validity, structural validity, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity, and interpretability. CONCLUSION: Considering the importance of adequate measurement properties, it is concluded that, in the field of rotator cuff pathology, there is room for improvement in the methodological quality of studies measurement properties. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.040 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".