Health-related quality of life of patients presenting to the emergency department with a musculoskeletal disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess utility scores of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a musculoskeletal disorder and to explore the influence of diverse factors on health-related quality of life. Design Secondary analysis of data obtained before randomization during a pragmatic randomized controlled trial Setting Academic ED in Quebec City (Canada) Participants Participants aged 18-80 years old presenting with a minor MSKD. Main Outcome Measures Health-related quality of life (five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) and utility scores (0 – dead, 100 – perfect health), measured with the EQ-5D-5L, were compared between subgroups and with reference values using descriptive statistics (mean, median), rankFD ANOVAs, and χ 2 tests. Results Sixty-nine participants completed the EQ-5D-5L. Mean and median utility scores were respectively 0.536 (95% CI: 0.479-0.594) and 0.531 (IQR: 0.356-0.760). Participants with higher levels of pain (<4/10: 0.741; 4-7/10: 0.572; >7/10: 0.433) or pain interference on function (<4/10: 0.685; 4-7/10: 0.463; >7/10: 0.294) presented significantly lower utility scores. No significant differences were found for other socio-demographic characteristics. The mean overall VAS score was 58.1 (95% CI: 52.2-64.0). Conclusions In patients with MSKDs presenting to the ED, higher levels of pain and pain interference on function may influence perceived health-related QoL. These findings need to be confirmed on a larger scale. Trial Registration This trial was registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) # NCT04009369 on July 5, 2019
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".