Patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying psychometrically sound PROMs by appraising their measurement properties. Studies concerning the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of PROMs used in a TKA population were systematically retrieved via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. Ratings for methodological quality and measurement properties were conducted according to updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Of the 155 articles on 34 instruments included, nine PROMs met the minimum requirements for psychometric validation and can be recommended to use as measures of TKA outcome: Oxford Knee Score (OKS); OKS–Activity and Participation Questionnaire (OKS-APQ); 12-item short form Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS-12); KOOS Physical function Short form (KOOS-PS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index-Total Knee Replacement function short form (WOMAC-TKR); Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS); Forgotten Joint Score (FJS); Patient’s Knee Implant Performance (PKIP); and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. The pain and function subscales in WOMAC, as well as the pain, function, and quality of life subscales in KOOS, were validated psychometrically as standalone subscales instead of as whole instruments. However, none of the included PROMs have been validated for all measurement properties. Thus, further studies are still warranted to evaluate those PROMs. Use of the other 25 scales and subscales should be tempered until further studies validate their measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(3):203–217.
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 | 0.020 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".