MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925218936 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/egtb5

Physiotherapy management of tennis elbow: An international online survey

2021· article· en· W6925218936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)ElbowPopulationScope of practiceConservative managementMEDLINEComputer-assisted web interviewing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tennis elbow, formally known as lateral elbow tendinopathy, is a relatively common musculoskeletal disorder of the elbow affecting approximately 1 to 3% of the general population (1). Conservative, nonsurgical, management is the preferred first line treatment for tennis elbow (2), and as such physiotherapists around the world are uniquely placed to offer a variety of management strategies. Unfortunately, current international physiotherapy practices for the management of tennis elbow are largely unknown and understanding these practices will enable better management for patients suffering from this condition. The aim of this project is to develop an understanding of the current physiotherapy management of tennis elbow internationally and to understand whether there are difference in the management strategies between countries. For the purpose of this study physiotherapy management refers to all aspects of clinical care including assessment, treatment, and coordination of continuity of care within the professional scope of practice. To achieve this aim we have developed an anonymous online survey which will be sent to registered physiotherapists of 11 countries. The selected countries are Member Organisations of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manual Therapy (IFOMPT), where the English language is deemed one of the official languages of the country. These 11 countries include: Australia, Canada, England, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South Africa, United States of America, and Wales. Information collected within the survey includes: Demographic data (e.g. age, gender, level of education), Clinician’s knowledge of tennis elbow Frequency of use for common and less common assessment techniques and patient reported outcome measures Frequency of use for common and less common treatment techniques Clinician’s perceived confidence level in the assessment and treatment of tennis elbow Clinician’s opinion on key questions such as how many appointments are required to resolve the condition. References 1. Shiri R, ViikariJuntura E, Varonen H, Heliövaara M. Prevalence and determinants of lateral and medial epicondylitis: A population study. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2006;164(11):10651074. 2. Coombes BK, Bisset L, Vicenzino B. Management of lateral elbow tendinopathy: One size does not fit all. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 2015;45(11):938949.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.029

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207