Differences in Physician and Patient Ratings of Items Used to Assess Hip Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine what issues are important to active individuals with hip lesions and to assess whether these issues are different from those that surgeons think are important. HYPOTHESIS: A discrepancy will be noted between what patients and surgeons believe to be important. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This study comprised 150 consecutive patients (73 men, 77 women) from the international practices of 9 orthopaedic surgeons specializing in the management of hip disorders. All participants were seeking treatment for musculoskeletal hip disease. Average patient age was 42 +/- 11 years (range, 18-60). Patients and surgeons rated the importance of 146 potential hip outcome assessment items on a 6-point Likert-type scale. RESULTS: Of the 23 items identified as being important to patients, 16 were in the sports and recreation category. The top 11 items that the clinicians thought were most important were rated significantly lower by patients (P < .0005). Specifically, surgeons rated several items as being important that fell into the symptoms, functional limitations, and occupational issues categories, whereas patients did not. That is, a difference was found between patients and clinicians in how they rated items related to symptoms, functional limitations, and occupation (P < .01). A difference was not found between patients and surgeons in how they rated items related to sports and recreation and social-emotional lifestyle (P > .01). CONCLUSION: The hypothesis of this study was affirmed: a discrepancy was found between what issues patients believe are important and what surgeons perceive as being important to patients. This information may be particularly important when assessing treatment outcomes from a patient's perspective. Clinicians must be careful in presuming that the issues that they are attempting to improve with treatment are issues that are important to patients. These findings also emphasize the importance of discussing appropriate postoperative expectations for those considering 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 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".