Validity Of The Patient-rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire As An Outcome Tool For Lateral Epicondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the sensitivity to change of the Patient-Rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire (PRFEQ) for individuals with lateral epicondylitis (LE). METHODS 52 subjects who participated in a double-blind randomized control trial on the effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (LE) were administered the PRFEQ at 0, 4 and 8 weeks after initiation of therapy. All subjects had previously not received therapy for their LE. The PRFEQ has a highest possible score of 10 and lowest possible score of 0, where 0 indicates no pain and no difficulty in performing activities. Overall elbow pain (10cm visual analogue scale), quality of life (EuroQoL questionnaire) and grip strength were also evaluated. Subjects were classified as treatment successes or treatment non-successes based on the elbow pain VAS at 8 weeks. RESULTS The mean PRFEQ scores for treatment non-successes and treatment successes at baseline were 3.49 (SD=1.60) and 3.12 (SD=1.37) respectively. The mean PRFEQ scores for treatment non-successes and treatment successes at 8 weeks were 3.54 (SD=1.87) and 1.90 (SD=1.16) respectively. The mean change in score of the treatment non-success group was 0.5 with a 95% confidence interval of [0.1–0.9]. The mean change in score of the treatment success group was 1.6 with a 95% confidence interval of [1.2–2]. Test-retest reliability over 4 weeks, however, was poor (ICC=0.51) and the PRFEQ did not demonstrate acceptable item-specific convergent validity with similar or identical items in other validated tools. CONCLUSIONS The PRFEQ appears to be sensitive to clinically significant change in individuals with previously untreated lateral epicondylitis, but may not be a reliable outcome tool. Discrepancies between specific items of the PRFEQ and other measures of similar constructs may be related to the use of the visual numeric scale on the PRFEQ. Supported by the Alberta Provincial CIHR Bone and Joint Training Program and the Sport Science Association of Alberta.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".