Measurement Properties of the Polymyalgia Rheumatica Activity Score: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)-based systematic literature review of measurement properties of the Polymyalgia Rheumatica Activity Score (PMR-AS). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were broadly searched. English full-text articles, with (quantitative) data on ≥ 5 patients with PMR using the PMR-AS were selected. Seven hypotheses for construct validity and 3 for responsiveness, concerning associations with erythrocyte sedimentation rate, physical function, quality of life, clinical disease states, ultrasound, and treatment response, were formulated. We assessed the structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, and measurement error, or the hypotheses on construct validity or responsiveness of the PMR-AS based on COSMIN criteria. RESULTS: Out of the identified 26 articles that used the PMR-AS, we were able to use 12 articles. Structural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness were assessed in 1, 2, 8, and 3 articles, respectively. Insufficient evidence was found to confirm structural validity and internal consistency. No data were found on reliability or measurement error. Although 60% and 67% of hypotheses tested for construct validity and responsiveness, respectively, were confirmed, there was insufficient evidence to meet criteria for good measurement properties. CONCLUSION: While there is some promising evidence for construct validity and responsiveness of the PMR-AS, it is lacking for other properties and, overall, falls short of criteria for good measurement properties. Therefore, further research is needed to assess its role in clinical research and care.
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 | 0.038 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".