Disability and Functionality Measures in Patients With Acute Ankle Sprain: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this review was to identify how disability and functionality were measured in patients with acute ankle sprain and present according to the International Classification of Function, Disability, and Health (ICF). Methods: We conducted a scoping review of randomized controlled trials including participants with acute ankle sprain. We conducted the searches in 4 databases to identify the studies. The searchers considered the inception of databases up to February 2024, without language restrictions. The process of evidence selection and data extraction was conducted independently. The summarization of evidence was presented according to the ICF. Results: We included 49 randomized controlled trials. The most common way disability and functionality were assessed in the included studies was through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 35 (71.4%), and the most used PROM was the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Most of the tools used to measure disability and functionality fall under the participation domain of the International Classification of Functioning, followed by activity. Conclusion: Disability and functionality in randomized controlled trials of acute ankle sprain is usually assessed through PROMs. The most comprehensive item of the ICF was participation, followed by activity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".