A Comparison Study of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, and the Constant–Murley Score with Objective Assessment of External Rotator Muscle Strength and Pain in Patients after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although rotator cuff injures are often associated with a limited range of motion and muscle weakness, being able to conduct pain-free and efficient performances of the activities as part of daily living seems to be more important for patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between two questionnaires—the disease-specific, subjective questionnaire termed the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), and the shoulder-specific, subjective-objective questionnaire Constant–Murley score (CMS), with the objective assessment of external rotator muscle strength, and the subjective assessment of pain according to the visual analog scale (VAS) in patients after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The study was carried out among 47 patients twice—6 and 12 months after surgery, respectively. All patients completed the WORC, the CMS, and the VAS. Isokinetic evaluation of the external rotators was performed using the Biodex 4 ProSystem. The correlations of all assessed muscle strength parameters with both the CMS and the WORC were found to be statistically significant, being mostly average during the 1st examination and mostly strong during the 2nd examination. There was a significant improvement in all assessed tools as a result of the undertaken rehabilitation. There were weak correlations present between changes in the WORC and changes in the external rotator muscle strength, with correlations between WORC-Sport and EXT900-AVERAGE-POWER and PEAK-TORQUE also being found statistically significant. Correlations of changes in the CMS scale with changes in the external rotator muscle strength were weak and statistically insignificant. It seems that the WORC questionnaire can be recommended more for the population after rotator cuff repair, which allows for a reliable assessment of patients’ ability to function and its changes in various areas of life, and at the same time does not require a direct assessment by a clinician or researcher.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".