ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2017
A Return-to-Work Prognostic Model for Orthopaedic Trauma Patients (WORRK) Updated for Use at 3, 12 and 24 Months.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Impact of Functional Capacity Evaluation on Patient-Reported Functional Ability: An Exploratory Diagnostic Before-After Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Updating the Wallis Occupational Rehabilitation Risk (WORRK) model formula, predicting non-return to work (nRTW) at different time points (3 and 12 months) than in the validation study (2 years). Methods Secondary analysis of two samples was carried out (following orthopaedic trauma), including work status, the first at 3 months (428 patients) and the second at 12 months (431 patients) after discharge from rehabilitation. We used calibration (agreement between predicted probabilities and observed frequencies) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve) to assess performance of the model after fitting it in the new sample, then calculated the probabilities of nRTW based on the coefficients from the 2-year prediction. Finally, the intercepts were updated for both 3- and 12-month prediction models (re-calibration was necessary for the adjustment of these probabilities) and performance re-evaluated. Results Patient characteristics were similar in all samples (mean age 43 in both groups; 86% male at 3 months, 84% male at 12 months). The proportion of nRTW at 3 months was 63.8% and 53.4% at 12 months (50.36% at 2 years). Performance of the original WORRK for both 3- and 12-month prediction showed an AUC of 0.73, while statistically significant miscalibration was found for both time points (p < 0.001). After the updating of the intercept, calibration was improved and did not show significant miscalibration (p = 0.458 and 0.341). The AUC stayed at 0.73. Conclusion The WORRK model was successfully adapted by changing the intercept for 3- and 12-month prediction of nRTW, now available for use in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.