MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185393490 · doi:10.1097/oi9.0000000000000137

Which general functional outcome measure does a better job of capturing change in clinical status in pelvic and acetabular fracture patients? An analysis of responsiveness over the first year of recovery

2021· article· en· W3185393490 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian J. Ko, Peter J. O’Brien, Henry M. Broekhuyse, Pierre Guy, Kelly A. Lefaivre

Bibliographic record

VenueOTA International The Open Access Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMinimal clinically important differenceTrauma centerProspective cohort studyPatient-reported outcomeSurgeryPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Retrospective cohort studyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: To compare the responsiveness of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component score (PCS) to the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) dysfunction index (DI) in pelvic and acetabular fracture patients over multiple time points in the first year of recovery. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Level 1 trauma center. Patients/Participants: Four hundred seventy-three patients with surgically treated pelvic and acetabular fractures (Orthopaedic Trauma Association B or C-type pelvic ring disruption or acetabular fracture) were enrolled into the center's prospective orthopaedic trauma database between January 2005 and February 2015. Functional outcome data were collected at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Main outcome measurements: Evaluation was performed using the SF-36 Survey and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment. Responsiveness was assessed by calculating the standard response mean (SRM), the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and floor and ceiling effects. Results: Three hundred five patients had complete data for both outcome scores. SF-36 PCS and SMFA DI scores showed strong correlation for all time intervals (r = −0.55 at baseline, r = −0.78 at 6 months, and r = −0.85 at 12 months). The SRM of the SF-36 PCS was greater in magnitude than the SRM of SMFA DI at all time points; this was statistically significant between baseline and 6 months ( P < .001), but not between 6 and 12 months ( P = .29). Similarly, the proportion of patients achieving MCID in SF-36 PCS was significantly greater than the proportion achieving MCID in SMFA DI between baseline and 6 months (84.6% vs 69.8%, P < .001), and between 6 and 12 months (48.5% vs 35.7%, P = .01). There were no ceiling or floor effects found for SF-36 PCS at any time intervals. However, 16.1% of patients achieved the highest level of functioning detectable by the SMFA DI at baseline, along with smaller ceiling effects at 6 months (1.3%) and 12 months (3.3%). Conclusions: SF-36 PCS is a more responsive measure of functional outcome than the SFMA DI over the first year of recovery in patients who sustain a pelvic ring disruption or acetabular fracture. This superiority was found in using the SRM, proportion of patients meeting MCID, and ceiling effects. Furthermore, the SF-36 PCS correlated with the more disease-specific SMFA DI. Level of evidence: Prognostic Level II.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTA International The Open Access Journal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207