MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291993727 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2022-105497

Meaningful thresholds for patient-reported outcomes following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament tear or traumatic meniscus injury: a systematic review for the OPTIKNEE consensus

2022· review· en· W4291993727 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin M. Macri, James J. Young, Lina Holm Ingelsrud, Karim M. Khan, Berend Terluin, Carsten Bogh Juhl, Jackie L. Whittaker, Adam G Culvenor, Kay M. Crossley, Ewa M. Roos

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLa Trobe University
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligamentMeniscusMedicineAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesPsychological interventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationACL injuryPhysical therapyMEDLINEMedial meniscusSystematic reviewSurgeryOsteoarthritisPathologyAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We synthesised and assessed credibility (ie, trustworthiness) of thresholds that define meaningful scores for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear or traumatic meniscus injury. DESIGN: Systematic review, narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: We searched five databases, handsearched references of included studies and tracked citations. ELIGIBILITY: Included studies investigated: individuals with ACL tear or meniscus injury; mean age <35 years; and PROM thresholds calculated using any method to define a minimal important change (MIC) or a meaningful post-treatment score (Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) or Treatment Failure). RESULTS: We included 18 studies (15 ACL, 3 meniscus). Three different methods were used to calculate anchor-based MICs across 9 PROMs, PASS thresholds across 4 PROMs and treatment failure for 1 PROM. Credibility was rated 'high' for only one study-an MIC of 18 for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality-of-life (KOOS-QOL) subscale (using the MID Credibility Assessment Tool). Where multiple thresholds were calculated among 'low' credibility thresholds in ACL studies, MICs converged to within a 10-point range for KOOS-Symptoms (-1.2 to 5.4) and function in daily living (activities of daily living, ADL 0.5-8.1) subscales, and the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (7.1-16.2). Other PROM thresholds differed up to 30 points. PASS thresholds converged to within a 10-point range in KOOS-ADL for ACL tears (92.3-100), and KOOS-Symptoms (73-78) and KOOS-QOL (53-57) in meniscus injuries. CONCLUSION: Meaningful PROM thresholds were highly susceptible to study heterogeneity. While PROM thresholds can aid interpretability in research and clinical practice, they should be cautiously interpreted.

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)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.398
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.398
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.014
Bibliometrics0.0230.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations46
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207