MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Development of a Clinician-Rated Drop Vertical Jump Scale for Patients Undergoing Rehabilitation After ACL Reconstruction

2016· article· en· W2473573063 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila S. Gagnon, Trevor B. Birmingham, Bert M. Chesworth, Dianne Bryant, J. Robert Giffin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligamentACL injuryRehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicineDelphi methodVertical jumpPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLikert scaleValgusTrunkAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionOrthodonticsJumpPsychologySurgeryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomechanical studies suggest performance on a drop vertical jump (DVJ) can predict anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and should be targeted during rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction. A clinically feasible tool would be advantageous for quantitatively evaluating performance and change in DVJ following therapy. Such a tool should be developed by a panel of experts to establish consensus on the usefulness of the tool, and to verify that essential components are included. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to establish consensus on the content and scoring of a Clinician Rated DVJ Scale for use during rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, 20 experts on the risk factors, prevention, treatment and/or biomechanics of ACL injury, anonymously critiqued the proposed Clinician Rated DVJ Scale, using Likert-scales and written feedback. Three-to-five rounds were planned a priori as termination criteria, with the requirement of 75% agreement on items after the final round. RESULTS: Nine researchers and eleven clinicians including physical therapists, athletic therapists and orthopaedic surgeons participated. Response rates were 55%, 85% and 70% for rounds two, three and four, respectively. After rounds one and two, the scale was revised to include only the components that ≥ 61% of experts agreed upon. After round three, only two components had ≤ 75% agreement, and these were refined for round four. After round four, ≥ 92% agreement was achieved. Final items on the scale include a rating of knee valgus collapse (No to Extreme), and other undesirable movements including evidence of lateral trunk lean, insufficient trunk flexion, insufficient knee flexion and limb-to-limb asymmetry. A scale from 0 (No knee valgus collapse and no undesirable movements) to 9 (Extreme knee valgus collapse ± undesirable movements) is included for each leg to monitor change throughout rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process resulted in adequate agreement on the content and scoring of the Clinician Rated DVJ Scale to support its preliminary use as a measurement tool for functional testing throughout rehabilitation following ACL injury and/or reconstruction. A Beta version of the scale will be subsequently piloted.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→