Validation of the Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain Questionnaire in Patients with Hand Osteoarthritis: Results from the Nor-Hand Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of a modified Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP) questionnaire for assessment of pain in hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The modified ICOAP-hand questionnaire was administered to 300 patients [89% female, median (interquartile range) age: 61 (57-66) yrs] in the Nor-Hand observational cohort study. The questionnaire was completed twice by 31 patients and test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for sum scores and weighted κ scores for individual items. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient and item-total correlations. Correlations between the ICOAP-hand questionnaire, the Australian/Canadian Hand OA Index (AUSCAN) hand pain subscale, and pain on a numerical rating scale (NRS) were analyzed using Spearman correlation analyses. RESULTS: We found a substantial overlap between constant and intermittent pain (46% reporting constant + intermittent pain and 33% reporting no pain). Test-retest reliability analysis of ICOAP-hand showed an ICC of 0.89 for the total scale and weighted κ values between 0.39-0.70 for the individual items. Principal component analysis revealed one component with an eigenvalue of 7.9, explaining 72% of the total variance. Cronbach's alpha coefficient values > 0.93 and strong item-total correlations proved high internal consistency. ICOAP-hand was strongly correlated with NRS hand pain and the AUSCAN pain subscale. CONCLUSION: ICOAP-hand is a reliable pain index that correlates with other available pain questionnaires. However, our results indicate that constant and intermittent pain do not represent separate constructs in hand OA, questioning the usefulness of the 2 subscales. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03083548].
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".