Reliability of the hip examination in osteoarthritis: Effect of standardization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To assess the reliability of the physical examination of the hip in osteoarthritis (OA) among rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons, and to evaluate the benefits of standardization. Methods Thirty‐five physical signs and techniques were evaluated using a 6 × 6 Latin square design. Subjects with mild to severe hip OA, based on physical and radiographic signs, were examined in random order prior to and following standardization of physical examination techniques. For dichotomous signs, agreement was calculated as the prevalence‐adjusted bias‐adjusted kappa (PABAK), whereas for continuous and ordinal signs a reliability coefficient was calculated using analysis of variance. A PABAK >0.60 and a reliability coefficient >0.80 were considered to indicate adequate reliability. Results Adequate post‐standardization reliability was achieved for 25 (71%) of 35 signs. The most highly reliable signs included true and apparent leg length discrepancy ≥1.5 cm; hip flexion, abduction, adduction, and extension strength; log roll test for hip pain; internal rotation and flexion range of motion; and Thomas test for flexion contracture. The standardization process was associated with substantial improvements in reliability for a number of physical signs, although minimal or no change was noted for some. Only 1 sign, Trendelenburg's sign, was highly unreliable post‐standardization. Conclusion With the exception of gait, a comprehensive hip examination can be performed with adequate reliability. Post‐standardization reliability is improved compared with pre‐standardization reliability for some physical signs. The application of these findings to future OA studies will contribute to improved outcome assessments in OA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".