MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102528235 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.g.00336

Patients Can Provide a Valid Assessment of Quality of Life, Functional Status, and General Health on the Day They Undergo Knee Surgery

2008· letter· en· W2102528235 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne Bryant, Paul W. Stratford, Robert G. Marx, Stephen D. Walter, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGold standard (test)Anterior cruciate ligamentQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryPhysical therapyArthroscopyReliability (semiconductor)Knee surgeryACL injuryOsteoarthritisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the interest of efficiency, investigators often offer participants in surgical trials the option of completing baseline assessments on the day of surgery. The emotional affects of this day may, however, increase bias or random error. We studied the validity and reliability of collecting subjective ratings of health on the day of surgery. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-seven patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and/or knee arthroscopy completed quality-of-life, functional status, and general health instruments at four weeks preoperatively, on the day of surgery, and one year postoperatively. We evaluated results with use of three conceptual frameworks: (1) that ratings provided four weeks preoperatively provide a gold standard for preoperative ratings, (2) that there is no gold standard for preoperative ratings and that, if valid, ratings on the day of surgery should be highly correlated with ratings at four weeks preoperatively and moderately and similarly correlated with ratings at one year postoperatively, and (3) that ratings provided four weeks preoperatively and on the day of surgery are measuring identical constructs and should therefore show high reliability. RESULTS: Most patients (97%) had a chronic injury as the interval between the injury and surgery was more than ninety days. Data collected on the day of surgery demonstrated high predictive validity with data collected within one month before surgery. There was no significant heterogeneity between variances for data collected four weeks preoperatively and on the day of surgery. The correlation between data collected on the day of surgery and four weeks preoperatively was moderate to high (range, 0.64 to 0.93), and the correlation between preoperative ratings and the one-year postoperative ratings was moderate (range, 0.40 to 0.59) across all instruments. Agreement between the ratings provided four weeks preoperatively and on the day of surgery was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.64 to 0.91), and the standard error of measurement was small across instruments. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of chronic knee injuries, patients can accurately rate their quality of life, general health, and functional status on the day on which they undergo surgery.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207