MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098328601 · doi:10.1002/acr.22631

Validation of the Chinese Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in Patients From Mainland China With Osteoarthritis of the Knee

2015· article· en· W2098328601 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tara Symonds, Bernadette Hughes, Shanmei Liao, Qiuqing Ang, Nicholas Bellamy

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPfizer
KeywordsWOMACPhysical therapyOsteoarthritisCronbach's alphaConstruct validityDiscriminant validityMedicineIntraclass correlationRating scalePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To establish the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) among Chinese subjects with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, living in mainland China. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted for validation of the electronic personal digital assistant version of the WOMAC Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 3.1 Index in China. A total of 287 subjects with OA of the knee were randomized to receive either meloxicam (15 mg) or placebo. Psychometric properties of the WOMAC were evaluated by estimating the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Equivalence of the electronic version was also compared with the paper version. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients for the WOMAC pain, stiffness, and physical function subscales were 0.81, 0.76, and 0.85, respectively, indicating good test-retest reliability. Similarly, internal consistency was strong (Cronbach's alpha for the 3 WOMAC subscales was 0.84, 0.86, and 0.96, respectively). Pearson's correlation coefficients for WOMAC pain and Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) bodily pain, as well as WOMAC physical function and SF-36 physical functioning domains were >0.4, indicating convergent validity, whereas the coefficients for all 3 WOMAC domains with SF-36 mental health and mental health component scores were <0.4, indicating divergent validity. There was strong discriminant validity between healthy volunteers and OA patients. The effect sizes of change from baseline to week 12 in WOMAC subscale scores were large, demonstrating sensitivity to change. Equivalence between paper and electronic versions was very high. CONCLUSION: The culturally and linguistically validated Chinese version of the WOMAC NRS 3.1 for mainland China is psychometrically robust in its validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change for patients with OA of the knee.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations86
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207