MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916635646 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028777

Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a <i>BMJ</i> Rapid Recommendation

2019· review· en· W2916635646 on OpenAlexaff
Qiukui Hao, Tahira Devji, Dena Zeraatkar, Yuting Wang, Anila Qasim, Reed Siemieniuk, Per Olav Vandvik, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Alonso Carrasco‐Labra, Thomas Agoritsas, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOMEDLINEData extractionCredibilitySystematic reviewPhysical therapyGuidelineEvidence-based medicineGrading (engineering)Alternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Rapid Recommendations addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain. DESIGN: Systematic review. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rapid Recommendations panel as important for informing their recommendation (pain, function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to August 2018. STUDY SELECTION AND REVIEW METHODS: We included original studies of any intervention for shoulder conditions reporting estimates of anchor-based MIDs for relevant PROMs. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria. Six reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data from eligible studies using a predesigned, standardised, pilot-tested extraction form and independently assessed the credibility of included studies using an MID credibility tool. RESULTS: We identified 22 studies involving 5562 patients that reported 74 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 10 candidate instruments to assess shoulder pain, function and HRQoL. We identified MIDs of high credibility for pain and function outcomes and of low credibility for HRQoL. We offered median estimates for the systematic review team who applied these MIDs in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence summaries and in their interpretations of results in the linked systematic review addressing the effectiveness of surgery for shoulder pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides anchor-based MID estimates, as well as a rating of their credibility, for PROMs for patients with shoulder conditions. The MID estimates inform the interpretation for a linked systematic review and guideline addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain, and could also prove useful for authors addressing other interventions for shoulder problems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018106531.

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)0.159
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.463
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1590.463
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.023
Bibliometrics0.0200.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations135
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207