Recommendations for a core outcome measurement set for clinical trials in whiplash associated disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of treatments for whiplash associated disorders (WAD) hinders effective data pooling and conclusions about treatment effectiveness. A multidisciplinary International Steering Committee recently recommended 6 core outcome domains: Physical Functioning, Perceived Recovery, Work and Social Functioning, Psychological Functioning, Quality of Life and Pain. This study aimed to reach consensus and recommend a core outcome set (COS) representing each of the 6 domains. Forty-three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were identified for Physical Functioning, 2 for perceived recovery, 37 for psychological functioning, 17 for quality of life, and 2 for pain intensity. They were appraised in 5 systematic reviews following COSMIN methodology. No PROMs of Work and Social Functioning in WAD were identified. No PROMs had undergone evaluation of content validity in patients with WAD, but some had moderate-to-high-quality evidence for sufficient internal structure. Based on these results, the International Steering Committee reached 100% consensus to recommend the following COS: Neck Disability Index or Whiplash Disability Questionnaire (Physical Functioning), the Global Rating of Change Scale (Perceived Recovery), one of the Pictorial Fear of Activity Scale-Cervical, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, or Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (Psychological Functioning), EQ-5D-3L or SF-6D (Quality of Life), numeric pain rating scale or visual analogue scale (Pain), and single-item questions pertaining to current work status and percent of usual work (Work and Social Functioning). These recommendations reflect the current status of research of PROMs of the 6 core outcome domains and may be modified as evidence grows.
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 | 0.659 | 0.823 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".