Functional Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Content Analysis Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to identify the existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in hip or knee arthroplasty for adults with osteoarthritis and assess their content validity using the modified International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) core set for osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched to identify disease or joint-specific PROMs evaluating function after hip or knee arthroplasty. Two reviewers independently evaluated the content of PROMs based on established ICF linking rules. RESULTS: From 449 studies included in this review, 50 PROMs were identified. The mobility chapter of activities and participation was the most common component, followed by the sensory function and pain chapter of body function and structure. The most frequent ICF activity and participation categories were d451 going up and down stairs, d4701 using private motorized transportation, d4104 standing, and d4154 maintaining a standing position. However, 11 ICF categories of the modified OA core set were not captured in any PROMs. This ICF-based content analysis of PROMs revealed that included activity and participation categories vary widely, with little overlap among PROMs. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score had the most coverage for activity and participation (36.7%). CONCLUSION: Even though our search identified 50 specific PROMs, there remain gaps in content related to activity and participation coverage. By providing a content analysis of the PROMs used after hip or knee arthroplasty, this study may help clinicians select PROMs based on covered categories and relevant clinical objectives.
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 | 0.019 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".