MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033923369 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.03.018

An Assessment of a Short Composite Questionnaire Designed for Use in an Interventional Spine Pain Management Setting

2012· article· en· W2033923369 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Burnham, Gordon Stanford, Lori Gray

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsBurman UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Reliability (semiconductor)Patient satisfactionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and practicality of a short composite questionnaire designed for use in an interventional spine pain management setting. SETTING: A rural interventional spine pain management practice. PATIENTS: Sixty subjects undergoing spinal intervention procedures (injection or neurotomy). METHODS: The Pain Disability Quality of Life Questionnaire-Spine (PDQQ-S) assesses spine pain quality, related disability, and life satisfaction/quality with the use of 2 questions for each domain. To assess the PDQQ-S, patients completed 4 questionnaires (McGill Pain Questionnaire [MPQ], Oswestry Disability Questionnaire [ODQ], Assessment of Quality of Life [AQoL], and PDQQ-S). Patients completed the questionnaires twice before their procedure and once after their procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test-retest reliability was assessed by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient for the 2 preprocedure questionnaire completions. Validity was assessed by calculating the Pearson correlation of the pain quality, disability, and life quality/satisfaction question scores of the PDQQ-S with the MPQ, ODQ, and AQoL, respectively. Questionnaire responsiveness was explored by calculating responsiveness ratio scores. Practicality was assessed by recording the time required to complete each questionnaire and the ease with which it was completed. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability correlation scores were as follows: PDQQ-S = 0.73; MPQ = 0.88; ODQ = 0.89; and AQoL = 0.83. Acceptable correlations existed between the pain, disability, and life quality/satisfaction domains of the PDQQ-S and the MPQ (.50), ODQ (.71), and AQoL (-.43), respectively. Responsiveness ratio scores for the PDQQ-S, MPQ, ODQ, and AQoL were 4.4, 1.9, 2.3, and 0.7, respectively. Compared with the other questionnaires, the PDQQ-S required approximately one fifth the time to complete and was significantly easier to understand. CONCLUSIONS: The PDQQ-S demonstrates adequate reliability and validity and superior responsiveness and practicality in persons with low back pain undergoing interventional spine pain management procedures.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207