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 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 | 0.124 | 0.278 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".