MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability and Validity of Hip Adduction Strength to Measure Disease Severity in Posterior Pelvic Pain Since Pregnancy

2002· article· en· W2067882766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Mens, Andry Vleeming, Chris J. Snijders, Inge Ronchetti, Henk J. Stam

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationPhysical therapyReliability (semiconductor)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis was performed in patients with posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy (PPPP). The strength of adduction of the hips was measured and compared with the scores of commonly used disease severity measures of lumbopelvic pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability and validity of using hip adduction strength as measure of disease severity in patients with PPPP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various tools are used to measure disease severity in PPPP; there is still a need for simple tests with high reliability and validity. METHODS: Intra- and intertester reliability of hip adduction strength measurement was assessed in two small groups of women with PPPP. Validity of hip adduction strength to measure disease severity was investigated in a group of 200 patients with PPPP by comparing the test scores with the medical history, scores on self-reported scales on disability, pain, and tiredness, pain provocation tests, and the active straight leg raise test. Responsiveness of hip adduction strength was assessed in a group of 75 patients with PPPP. Global impression of improvement, scored by the patient, was used as criterion standard. The responsiveness of the hip adduction strength was expressed as the standardized response mean and was compared with the responsiveness of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. RESULTS: The intratester reliability for measuring hip adduction strength and the intraclass correlation coefficient were both 0.79. The intertester reliability for measurement of adduction strength and the intraclass correlation coefficient were also both 0.79. Hip adduction strength correlated as expected with all disease severity measures. Responsiveness of the hip adduction strength was large (standardized response mean = 0.93) and slightly less than that of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (standardized response mean = 1.20). CONCLUSION: Hip adduction strength can be recommended to measure disease severity in PPPP, especially to describe groups of patients and to evaluate the course of the disease in groups as well as in individual patients. Decreased hip adduction strength appears to be caused by the inability to use the hip muscles rather than by weakness of the muscles.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations60
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207