Test reliability and comparability of paper and Chinese electronic version of the Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index: protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) is the most commonly used indicator of disease-specific outcome in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) for its convenience and reliability. It has two formats— the paper-based WOMAC (p-WOMAC) and the electronic WOMAC (e-WOMAC). In China, the p-WOMAC has been widely used though e-WOMAC is yet untested. This study aims to test whether e-WOMAC is consistent with the p-WOMAC before and after the intervention. Methods: A total of 240 patients from Shuguang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (SHUTCM) will be randomly assigned in two groups which are named as group A and group B. This study is divided into three stages. In the first stage, patients in group A will be evaluated first by p-WOMAC and then by e-WOMAC. Patients in group B will be evaluated by e-WOMAC and then by p-WOMAC. In the second stage of the study, drug interventions will be implemented. 200mg celecoxib will be administered orally once a day starting from the second day of enrollment for a period of 21 days. The third stage is the consistency evaluation stage after intervention. The post-intervention evaluation will be conducted after administration. Patients in group A will be evaluated first by e-WOMAC and then by p-WOMAC. Patients in group B will be evaluated first by p-WOMAC and then by e-WOMAC. In order to avoid the possible bias because of patients’ potential memory, e-WOMAC and p-WOMAC will be taken for each patient at 15 minutes apart in the first and third stages. The comparison will include the overall score of the WOMAC, the score of each subscale and the score of individual items. Comparing the e-WOMAC with the p-WOMAC, the primary outcome of the study is the mean score difference in WOMAC, and the secondary outcomes are the score differences in three WOMAC subscales: pain, stiffness, and physical function. Discussion : This study will test reliability and comparability between e-WOMAC and p-WOMAC. Meanwhile, we will also collect and provide participants’ feedback after comparing two formats of the WOMAC. If the results are favorable, our findings will serve to demonstrate the equivalence of each version of the WOMAC so that it can be implemented in specialized medical activities. Likewise, our results will further demonstrate the feasibility of e-health for the personalize KOA treatment. Trial registration: ChiCTR, ChiCTR2100050914. Registered on 8 Sep 2021, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=133521 Keywords: Chinese electronic version of WOMAC, Verification, Protocol
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 | 0.053 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.007 |
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".