Responsiveness of the SF-36 and WOMAC Following Periacetabular Osteotomy for Acetabular Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periacetabular osteotomy is a relatively common reconstructive procedure for the adolescent or young adult with acetabular dysplasia. Although several measures have been used to characterize the outcome, the responsiveness of these measures in this population has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to estimate the responsiveness of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) in patients with acetabular dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy. METHODS: Eighty-three patients with acetabular dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy between 2000 and 2005 completed the WOMAC and SF-36 both preoperatively and postoperatively. The scores on each domain of these outcome measures were calculated and analyzed to determine the parameters of responsiveness, including the minimal detectable change at the 90% confidence level. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 1.9 years. Comparison of the effect size, standardized response mean, and minimal detectable change for the SF-36 and WOMAC demonstrated that the WOMAC was more sensitive to change than the SF-36 was, particularly in the physical function domain (minimal detectable change, 9.1) and the pain domain (minimal detectable change, 5.5). Only one of the eight domains of the SF-36, bodily pain, demonstrated a change in outcome that exceeded the minimal detectable change, which was 2.38. CONCLUSIONS: Both the WOMAC and the SF-36 demonstrated adequate responsiveness to change over time in patients with acetabular dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy, although the WOMAC was more sensitive to change. These results indicate that the WOMAC is sufficiently responsive to be used as a joint-specific measure for assessing changes following periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of acetabular dysplasia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".