Responsiveness of outcome measures in patients with superior labral anterior and posterior lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of patients with superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions requires outcome measures validated for the purpose. The present study aimed to evaluate the responsiveness of the Rowe score, Oxford Instability Shoulder Score (OISS), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and EuroQol (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) in patients treated for SLAP lesions. METHODS: Eighty-nine patients were included: 34 had arthroscopic labral repair, 28 had mini-open biceps tenodesis and 27 had physical treatment. The outcome measures were administrated before treatment and after 6 months. Responsiveness was evaluated using standardized response mean (SRM), area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCAUC), reliable chance proportion (RCP) statistics and hypothesis testing. Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) estimates were reported. RESULTS: All outcome measures had high values of SRM (0.86-1.92). RCPs for the improved group were 68% to 79% for OISS, WOSI and Rowe score, and 15% to 49% for EuroQol. ROCAUC was >0.70 for all outcomes. MCIC estimates were 8 and 10 for OISS; 451 and 569 for WOSI; 17 and 18 for Rowe score; 0.39 and 0.53 for EQ-5D; and 35 and 41 for EQ-VAS. Responsiveness tested with hypotheses favours the shoulder-specific outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: OISS, WOSI and Rowe score are more responsive than EuroQol in evaluation of patients with SLAP lesions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".