The Development and Evaluation of a Disease-specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire for Disorders of the Rotator Cuff: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable disease-specific quality-of-life measurement tool for patients with rotator cuff disease. DESIGN: Health-related quality-of-life measurement tool development. METHODS: Methodology for the development and evaluation of the tool included the following: 1) identification of a specific patient population, 2) generation of potential items, 3) item reduction, 4) pretesting the prototype instrument, 5) determination of reliability, and 6) validation. RESULTS: The final instrument, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, double dagger has 21 items representing five domains, each with a Visual Analog Scale-type response option. Construct validation demonstrated that this instrument correlated predictably with other measurement tools (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand outcome measure; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form; University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale; Constant Score; Rowe; Sickness Impact Profile; Short Form 36; and range of motion; 21 of 21 correlations within 0.19). Reliability was very high at 2 weeks, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.96 and was more responsive (sensitive to change) than the other five shoulder measurement tools, global health instruments, and range of motion. CONCLUSIONS: This measurement tool can be used as the primary outcome in clinical trials evaluating treatments in this patient population, although its features are equally attractive for monitoring patients' progress in clinical practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".