MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402841881 · doi:10.1177/03635465241274151

English Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL): A Condition-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

2024· article· en· W4402841881 on OpenAlexaff
Hana Marmura, Dianne Bryant, Christian Fugl Hansen, John Brodersen, Michael R. Krogsgaard, Saveen Dhanoya, Alan Getgood

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligamentPromContext (archaeology)DanishThink aloud protocolACL injuryMedicinePhysical therapyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL) is a 41-item condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that was developed for patients with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency and patients after ACL reconstruction. This measure is intended to be used for longitudinal clinical studies. The KNEES-ACL has demonstrated face and content validity and superior responsiveness compared with other PROMs commonly used in patients with an ACL injury. However, this PROM was developed in Danish and has not been appropriately translated and culturally adapted into North American English. PURPOSE: To translate and culturally adapt the KNEES-ACL from Danish to North American English. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Translation from Danish to English and cultural adaptation to a North American context were performed according to the dual panel method. First, the Danish KNEES-ACL was translated by a bilingual panel, which provided multiple English wording options for each item. Second, an English lay panel focus group was formed to determine the wording for each item that best reflected everyday spoken language. Finally, individual think-aloud cognitive interviews were conducted with patients after an ACL injury to evaluate the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM content and questions. Repeated modifications and testing were performed until a final English version of the KNEES-ACL was constructed. RESULTS: Participants in the lay panel focus group were able to reach unanimous decisions for each of the 41 items. Further changes to 17 items were made after 8 think-aloud interviews with patients with ACL injuries at various time points to ensure that items were relevant and being interpreted consistently among different types of patients. The final KNEES-ACL consisted of 6 domains: Problems with Daily Activities, Mental Impact, Stability, Strength and Control, Pain, and Sport and Physical Activity. CONCLUSION: The English KNEES-ACL for patients with ACL injuries has undergone appropriate translation and cultural adaptation using established dual panel and cognitive interviewing methods in the population of interest. The psychometric properties of the English KNEES-ACL will likely mirror those established with the Danish version. However, direct validation of the psychometric properties of the English version would be beneficial before widespread use.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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