MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of the Lower Extremity Measure for Patients with a Hip Fracture*

2000· article· en· W2127337196 on OpenAlexaffabout
Susan Jaglal, ZUBAIR LAKHANI, J. Schatzker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationPhysical therapyMedicineHip fractureComorbidityConstruct validityReliability (semiconductor)PsychometricsOsteoporosisClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether currently published outcome measures of physical function would be suitable for use for older adults with a hip fracture. The measures that were considered were the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (MFA) Instrument, the Older Americans' Resources and Services (OARS) Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire physical function subscale, the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36). Following suggestions by an expert panel and patient interviews, the MFA was not tested further. The TESS was modified and renamed the Lower Extremity Measure (LEM). METHODS: Forty-three community-dwelling patients with a hip fracture completed the LEM, OARS, and SF-36 in the hospital so that the prefracture status could be obtained; they were then followed prospectively at six weeks and at six months. All patients were interviewed twice in the hospital to assess the reliability of the LEM (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.85). To establish criterion validity, the measures were compared with the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test at six weeks. We tested a number of hypotheses to determine construct validity. RESULTS: Only the LEM scores were significantly correlated with the TUG scores (r = -0.53, p = 0.03). The LEM scores were significantly correlated with the SF-36 subscale scores and the OARS scores. Patients with at least one comorbidity had a lower mean prefracture LEM score (90.0 +/- 9.7) than patients with no comorbidity (96.9 +/- 8.1) (p = 0.02). Patients who had used no walking aids before the fracture had a higher mean prefracture LEM score than those who had used a cane (95.5 +/- 5.8 compared with 85.5 +/- 12.7; p = 0.0007). Both the LEM and the SF-36 scores changed significantly between all of the time-periods (p < 0.05). Measures of responsiveness indicated that the LEM was the best measure for detecting changes in physical function. CONCLUSIONS: The LEM can detect clinically important changes in physical function over time in patients with a hip fracture and would be most useful for clinical trials or cohort studies. Orthopaedists who are currently utilizing the SF-36 can be reassured that the physical function subscale is a valid measure for patients with a hip fracture.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations101
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207