A global core outcome set for orthopaedic interventions in children with spinal dysraphism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Orthopaedic interventions in spinal dysraphism (SD) are frequently required to address a wide spectrum of musculoskeletal deformities. The outcomes used to assess treatment, however, are heterogeneous and most fail to incorporate patient/family perceptions. The aim of this study was to identify the minimum set of outcomes to be collected in clinical practice and research settings following orthopaedic intervention in ambulatory and non-ambulatory children with SD. Methods: The study was based on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness trials (COMET) initiative. A list of individual clinical outcomes (ICOs) and outcome measurement tools (OMTs) were obtained from a systematic literature review (SR) and from patients and families through an interview and questionnaire. Core outcomes were rated for importance in a two-round Delphi process that included international orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, orthotists, patients, and families. Outcomes that did not reach consensus during the Delphi process were resolved with a final consensus meeting. Results: In total, 88 statements, including ICOs and OMTs, were scored during the Delphi process for ambulatory and non-ambulatory children. A total of 35 items were resolved in the final consensus meeting. The final core outcome set (COS) is goal-based and includes 28 outcome parameters to be collected a minimum of one year after any orthopaedic intervention and at subsequent set points during childhood. The COS incorporates clinical examination, mobility and functional assessment, patient-reported outcome measures, and investigations with the Goal Attainment Score recommended for goal setting. Conclusion: A minimum set of outcomes to evaluate the orthopaedic treatment of SD was created thereby enabling consistency in reporting among centres and studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".