MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046428506 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.200248

Outcomes Measured in Polymyalgia Rheumatica and Measurement Properties of Instruments Considered for the OMERACT Core Outcome Set: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3046428506 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Helen Twohig, Claire Owen, Sara Müller, Christian Mallen, Caroline Mitchell, Samantha Hider, Catherine Hill, Beverley Shea, Sarah Mackie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNIHR School for Primary Care ResearchChugai PharmaceuticalVersus ArthritisNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of LeedsDepartment of Health and Social CareWellcome TrustSanofi
KeywordsMedicineErythrocyte sedimentation ratePolymyalgia rheumaticaPhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleChecklistData extractionInternal medicineMEDLINEDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify the outcome measures and instruments used in clinical studies of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and to evaluate evidence about their measurement properties. METHODS: Searches based on the MeSH term "polymyalgia rheumatica" were carried out in 5 databases. Two researchers were involved in screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Once outcomes and instruments used were identified and categorized, key instruments were selected for further review through a consensus process. Studies on measurement properties of these instruments were appraised against the COSMIN-OMERACT (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) checklist to determine the extent of evidence supporting their use in PMR. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included. In decreasing order of frequency, the most common outcomes (and instruments) used were markers of systemic inflammation [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP)], pain [visual analog scale (VAS)], stiffness (duration in minutes), and physical function (elevation of upper limbs). Instruments selected for further evaluation were ESR, CRP, pain VAS, morning stiffness duration, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. Five studies evaluated measurement properties of these instruments, but none met all of the COSMIN-OMERACT checklist criteria. CONCLUSION: Measurement of outcomes in studies of PMR lacks consistency. The critical patient-centered domain of physical function is poorly assessed. None of the candidate instruments considered for inclusion in the core outcome set had high-quality evidence, derived from populations with PMR, on their full range of measurement properties. Further studies are needed to determine whether these instruments are suitable for inclusion in a core outcome measurement set for PMR.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.010
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.117 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207