Validity of the Active Straight Leg Raise Test for Measuring Disease Severity in Patients With Posterior Pelvic Pain After Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis was performed with a group of women meeting strict criteria for posterior pelvic pain after pregnancy. The active straight leg raise test and common severity measurement scales of lumbopelvic pain were scored. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of the active straight leg raise test as a disease severity scale for patients with posterior pelvic pain after pregnancy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various diagnostic tools are used to measure disease severity in patients with posterior pelvic pain after pregnancy, but simple tests with high reliability and validity still are needed. METHODS: The investigation was performed with 200 women who had posterior pelvic pain after pregnancy. The validity of the active straight leg raise test as a severity scale was investigated by comparing the test score with the medical history, scores on self-reported disability scales, pain and tiredness, and pain provocation tests. The usefulness of the active straight leg raise test as a severity scale was compared with that of the Québec Back Pain Disability Scale. The influence of several demographic and anthropometric variables on the active straight leg raise score was investigated. RESULTS: The active straight leg raise score ranged from 0 to 10 and correlated as expected with all severity scales. The correlation between the scores on the active straight leg raise test and the Québec Back Pain Disability Scale was 0.70. No association was found between the active straight leg raise score and age, parity, duration of the postpartum period, height, or weight. CONCLUSION: The active straight leg raise test can be recommended as a disease severity scale for patients with posterior pelvic pain after pregnancy.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".