ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Comparative assessment of a virtual performance measure with self-report and performance-based outcomes in patients with hip osteoarthritis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purposes of this study were to examine the reliability and factorial and convergent validity of a virtual performance measure (VPM) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip joint and to compare the known-group validity of the VPM with traditional self-report and performance-based outcomes.
methodsThe VPM score was based on the results of 10 videos showing increasing difficulty in performing specific functional tasks. Patients were requested to choose the video that best reflected their own level of function. Clinical presentation and radiological findings were documented. Self-report measures were the lower extremity functional score (LEFS) and pain scale. The performance-based measures were the 30- second Chair Stand Test (CST) and the 40-meter fast paced walk test (40 m FPWT) test.
resultsData of 100 patients, 64 (64%) females, mean age: 67 ±10 were examined. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient that examined internal consistency of the VPM total score was 0.88. Factor analysis showed two distinct domains. Moderate correlations were observed between the VPM total score and the LEFS, pain score, and 40 m FPWT (r > 0.50). The VPM and the LEFS were able to differentiate between candidates and non-candidates for hip arthroplasty and between those with and without assistive walking devices. There was no statistically significant difference between the overall accuracy of the VPM and LEFS in the area under the curve value (0.72 vs. 0.71) with respect to candidacy for surgery.
conclusionsThis study provides substantial evidence towards the validity and reliability of the VPM outcome measure in patients with moderate to severe OA of the hip joint. Digitally based outcome measures have the potential of enhancing remote measurement of functional difficulties in specific situations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.