MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404339163 · doi:10.1080/17453674.2016.1181816

Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries

2016· letter· en· W2404339163 on OpenAlexaff
Ola Rolfson, Éric Bohm, Patricia D. Franklin, Stephen Lyman, Geke Denissen, Jill Dawson, Jennifer A. Dunn, Kate Eresian Chenok, Michael Dunbar, Søren Overgaard, Göran Garellick, Anne Lübbeke, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed ForcesDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMedicinePatient-reported outcomeArthroplastyOrthopedic surgeryMEDLINEPhysical therapyEmergency medicineSurgeryQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

- The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group have evaluated and recommended best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty registries. The 2 generic PROMs in common use are the Short Form health surveys (SF-36 or SF-12) and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D). The Working Group recommends that registries should choose specific PROMs that have been appropriately developed with good measurement properties for arthroplasty patients. The Working Group recommend the use of a 1-item pain question ("During the past 4 weeks, how would you describe the pain you usually have in your [right/left] [hip/knee]?"; response: none, very mild, mild, moderate, or severe) and a single-item satisfaction outcome ("How satisfied are you with your [right/left] [hip/knee] replacement?"; response: very unsatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied). Survey logistics include patient instructions, paper- and electronic-based data collection, reminders for follow-up, centralized as opposed to hospital-based follow-up, sample size, patient- or joint-specific evaluation, collection intervals, frequency of response, missing values, and factors in establishing a PROMs registry program. The Working Group recommends including age, sex, diagnosis at joint, general health status preoperatively, and joint pain and function score in case-mix adjustment models. Interpretation and statistical analysis should consider the absolute level of pain, function, and general health status as well as improvement, missing data, approaches to analysis and case-mix adjustment, minimal clinically important difference, and minimal detectable change. The Working Group recommends data collection immediately before and 1 year after surgery, a threshold of 60% for acceptable frequency of response, documentation of non-responders, and documentation of incomplete or missing data.

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)0.198
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.404
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1980.404
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

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

Citations329
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OrthopaedicaSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207