Preferred patient-rated outcome measure in patients with femoroacetabular impingement: a comparison between selected instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first aim of this study was to establish which questionnaire patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) most often preferred out of a set of self-reported generic and region/joint-specific outcome measures. A second aim was to evaluate their preferred type of response scale. One hundred and sixty-two consecutive FAI patients undergoing surgery (51% females, age 32 [SD 12] years, body mass index 24 [SD 4] kg/m(2)) completed five specific questionnaires [Hip Outcome Score (HOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, self-administered Harris Hip Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index] and three generic questionnaires (WHO Quality of Life-BREF, EuroQoL and 12-Item Short Form Survey). In addition, the patients completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, a questionnaire on expectation, and two sports activity scales (TEGNER and UCLA). Patients were asked to indicate the questionnaires that best reflected their situation, the most difficult to complete, and had the preferred response scale. 64% indicated a joint specific questionnaire as the one that best addressed their situation, with 27 and 20% choosing the HOS and the OHS, respectively. Most patients (62%) expressed no difficulties completing the questionnaires: just 12% considered the IPAQ difficult to complete, and 6% the HOS. The preferred response scale was the adjectival scale (57%), compared with the Numeric Rating Scale (39%) and the VAS (4%). This study showed that patients with FAI consider joint-specific instruments to be most relevant to them, in particular the HOS and OHS, and generally prefer responding on an adjectival scale.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".