MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251747339 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2018.1495274

Content and psychometric evaluations of questionnaires for assessing physical function in people with low back disorders. A systematic review of the literature

2018· review· en· W4251747339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Birgitta Wiitavaara, Marina Heiden

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRehabilitationSystematic reviewClinical psychologyPsychometricsPhysical therapyMEDLINEMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The purpose was to investigate how physical function is assessed in people with musculoskeletal disorders in the low back. Specifically:Which questionnaires are used to assess physical function in people with musculoskeletal disorders in the low back?What aspects of physical function do those questionnaires measure?What are the measurement properties of the questionnaires?Materials and methods: A systematic review was performed to identify questionnaires and psychometric evaluations of them. The content of the questionnaires was categorised according to the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health, and the psychometric evaluations were categorised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist.Results: The questionnaires measured disability or ability to cope in everyday life, rather than physical function as such. Different aspects of a person’s mobility and ability to attend to one’s personal care were most often included regarding activity and participation. For body functions, items about sleep and pain were most often included. The Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale showed adequate psychometric properties in most evaluations.Conclusions: The extent of psychometric evaluations differed substantially, as did the items included. Focus of measurement was predominantly on activities in daily life.Implications for rehabilitationValid and reliable instruments that measure relevant aspects of low back disorders are needed to provide early diagnostics and effective treatment.Most questionnaires need more psychometric evaluations to establish the quality.The Oswestry Disability Index and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale showed adequate psychometric properties in most evaluations.The results may be useful when making decisions about which measurement instruments to use when evaluating low back disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207