Psychometric properties of Brachial Plexus outcome measure: COSMIN-based systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children with incomplete recovery from Brachial Plexus Birth Injury (BPBI) experience varying degrees of upper limb impairment, and 20-30% require interventions to optimize function. A psychometrically validated measure of upper limb activity capacity is essential to guide shared clinical decisions for surgical and rehabilitation interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, this systematic review included studies on the measurement properties of the Brachial Plexus Outcome Measure (BPOM) - Activity Scale, a performance-based outcome measure of upper limb activity capacity in children with BPBI. Three databases were searched from inception to October 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and summarized using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)'s Risk of Bias checklist. RESULTS: = 7). The BPOM - Activity Scale demonstrated strong internal consistency, with good reliability and construct validity. Additional evidence on its content validity and reliability is necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the BPOM - Activity Scale has the potential to provide evidence-based information to support the rehabilitation of children with BPBI.
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 | 0.049 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".