Development of an Encompassing Questionnaire for Evaluating the Outcomes Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are many standardized scales and questionnaires used to evaluate TKA patients; however, individually they do not always assess patients adequately. Consequently, many are used in combinations to provide a thorough evaluation. However, this leads to redundancy, confusion, and an excessive patient time-burden. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a usable combined knee questionnaire that combines questions in a non-redundant manner. Specifically, we aimed to: 1) create a combined knee questionnaire that encompasses questions from multiple systems, while eliminating redundancy; 2) correlate the new system with the existing validated questionnaires; and 3) determine the length of time it takes to administer this new questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a previous study, it was determined that the six most commonly cited validated systems to assess the knee were the: Knee Society Score (KSS), The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Short-Form-36 (SF-36). Therefore, we ensured that the new questionnaire encompassed all elements of these systems. After development of the combined questionnaire, we co-administered it to 20 subjects alongside the above validated questionnaires. We then transposed the corresponding answers from the combined questionnaire to each selected validated system to perform an intra-class correlation analysis. In addition, we recorded the length of time it took to administer the new questionnaire and compared it to the time it took to administer the individual validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Intra-class correlation analysis demonstrated statistically significant positive correlations between the KSS, WOMAC, KOOS, LEFS, ARS, SF-36, and the corresponding questions in the combined questionnaire. The mean length of time it took to administer the combined questionnaire (mean, 10.1 minutes, range, 6.6 to 12.6 minutes) was significantly shorter than the time it took to administer the selected validated questionnaires (mean, 21.3 minutes, range, 17.3 to 24.1 minutes). CONCLUSION: We have proposed an all-encompassing combined knee questionnaire that eliminates redundancy and inefficiency during the evaluation of TKA patients. It is a reliable, time-efficient system that can be utilized to fill out the most commonly used questionnaires for assessing TKA. Standardization and uniform use of this questionnaire may simplify future patient assessment following TKA.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".