Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Clinical Assessments in Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical examination of the knee is subject to measurement error. The aim of this analysis was to determine interobserver and intraobserver reliability of commonly used clinical tests in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We studied subjects with symptomatic knee OA who were participants in an open-label clinical trial of intraarticular steroid therapy. Following standardization of the clinical test procedures, 2 clinicians assessed 25 subjects independently at the same visit, and the same clinician assessed 88 subjects over an interval period of 2-10 weeks; in both cases prior to the steroid intervention. Clinical examination included assessment of bony enlargement, crepitus, quadriceps wasting, knee effusion, joint-line and anserine tenderness, and knee range of movement (ROM). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), estimated kappa (κ), weighted kappa (κω), and Bland-Altman plots were used to determine interobserver and intraobserver levels of agreement. RESULTS: Using Landis and Koch criteria, interobserver κ scores were moderate for patellofemoral joint (κ = 0.53) and anserine tenderness (κ = 0.48); good for bony enlargement (κ = 0.66), quadriceps wasting (κ = 0.78), crepitus (κ = 0.78), medial tibiofemoral joint tenderness (κ = 0.76), and effusion assessed by ballottement (κ = 0.73) and bulge sign (κω = 0.78); and excellent for lateral tibiofemoral joint tenderness (κ = 1.00), flexion (ICC = 0.97), and extension (ICC = 0.87) ROM. Intraobserver κ scores were moderate for lateral tibiofemoral joint tenderness (κ = 0.60); good for crepitus (κ = 0.78), effusion assessed by ballottement test (κ = 0.77), patellofemoral joint (κ = 0.66), medial tibiofemoral joint (κ = 0.64), and anserine tenderness (κ = 0.73); and excellent for effusion assessed by bulge sign (κω = 0.83), bony enlargement (κ = 0.98), quadriceps wasting (κ = 0.83), flexion (ICC = 0.99), and extension (ICC = 0.96) ROM. CONCLUSION: Among individuals with symptomatic knee OA, the reliability of clinical examination of the knee was at least good for the majority of clinical signs of knee OA.
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 | 0.059 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".