MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045809222 · doi:10.1177/1071100714566624

Reliability and Validity of 6 Measures of Pain, Function, and Disability for Ankle Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis

2015· article· en· W2045809222 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ellie Pinsker, Taucha Inrig, Timothy R. Daniels, Kelly Warmington, Dorcas Beaton

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisConstruct validityPatient-reported outcomeArthroplastyArthrodesisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnklePatient satisfactionQuality of life (healthcare)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used evaluating clinical care. Many measures used to assess operative hindfoot interventions vary in content, and some have not been psychometrically validated in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare measurement properties of 6 lower-extremity patient-reported outcome measures, and to evaluate their reliability and validity in light of patients' preferences. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 42 preoperative and 100 postoperative patients completed 6 lower-extremity outcome measures on 2 occasions: Foot Function Index (FFI), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), patient-reported items of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Questionnaire (AOFAS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), as well as measures of preference, and symptoms. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good to excellent for all scales and subscales (α = .84-.97; ICC [2,1] = .81-.96). Correlations between scales ranged from .50 (WOMAC(Stiffness) and FFI(Activity) Limitations) to .92 (LEFS and SMFA(Overall), WOMAC(Pain) and AOS(Overall), FFI(Overall) and AOFAS(Overall)). Higher correlations occurred within instruments (r = .97 AOS(Pain) and AOS(Overall)) and between similar subscales from different instruments (r = .91 WOMAC(Pain) and AOS(Pain)). Construct validity showed moderate to high correlations to global ratings of Pain, Stiffness, and difficulty performing Daily Activities. The highest correlations (r > .75) occurred between Pain and AOS(Overall) (r = .84), stiffness and WOMAC(Stiffness) (r = .81), and Daily Activities and AOS(Disability) (r = .87). Patients rated instruments by preference. FFI, WOMAC, LEFS, and SMFA rated favorably for length. FFI, WOMAC, LEFS, and AOFAS rated high for understandability. FFI was rated by postoperative patients as most likely to capture change due to surgery. SMFA rated the best overall. CONCLUSIONS: Direct comparison of instruments revealed similarity between scales in construct validity and reliability. Patient preferences supported the use of these scales. Foot-specific instruments offered no clear advantage over lower-extremity instruments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoot & Ankle InternationalSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207