Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to evaluate patient conditions before and after total hip arthroplasty. Also, many studies have been conducted to evaluate and compare the qualities of these instruments. Previously published reports suggest that most of these studies have poor methodology. Recently, 2 sets of criteria were developed for guiding and assessing the methodological and psychometric quality of these PROMs. We reviewed PROMs for total hip arthroplasty patients and appraised the methodological quality and psychometric evidence of evaluations of each identified instrument. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and others were searched for English-language articles published on or before April 14, 2017, using search terms related to outcome instrument, the condition or procedure of interest (hip arthroplasty), and psychometric properties. The methodological quality of the studies and the evidence of the psychometric properties were summarized and appraised using the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) checklist and the psychometric evidence criteria. Overall psychometric ratings were derived by combining the 2 criteria. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies investigating 26 instruments were included. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score, Harris hip score, and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) were the most frequently assessed instruments. The WOMAC had 5 properties with positive evidence and was the highest-quality instrument overall, followed by the HOOS and the European Health Interview Survey (EUROHIS)-Quality of Life 8-item index. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a large number of included studies, many had low COSMIN ratings. We recommend additional rigorous studies to explore the psychometric properties of these instruments. Furthermore, the development of a core outcome set for total hip arthroplasty clinical trials is needed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it