Objective: To automatically recognize self-acknowledged limitations in clinical research publications to support efforts in improving research transparency.Methods: To develop our recognition methods, we used a set of 8431 sentences from 1197 PubMed Central articles. A subset of these sentences was manually annotated for training/testing, and inter-annotator agreement was calculated. We cast the recognition problem as a binary classification task, in which we determine whether a given sentence from a publication discusses self-acknowledged limitations or not. We experimented with three methods: a rule-based approach based on document structure, supervised machine learning, and a semi-supervised method that uses self-training to expand the training set in order to improve classification performance. The machine learning algorithms used were logistic regression (LR) and support vector machines (SVM).Results: Annotators had good agreement in labeling limitation sentences (Krippendorff's α = 0.781). Of the three methods used, the rule-based method yielded the best performance with 91.5% accuracy (95% CI [90.1-92.9]), while self-training with SVM led to a small improvement over fully supervised learning (89.9%, 95% CI [88.4-91.4] vs 89.6%, 95% CI [88.1-91.1]).Conclusions: The approach presented can be incorporated into the workflows of stakeholders focusing on research transparency to improve reporting of limitations in clinical studies.
DOCUMENT
Objective:Acknowledging study limitations in a scientific publication is a crucial element in scientific transparency and progress. However, limitation reporting is often inadequate. Natural language processing (NLP) methods could support automated reporting checks, improving research transparency. In this study, our objective was to develop a dataset and NLP methods to detect and categorize self-acknowledged limitations (e.g., sample size, blinding) reported in randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications.Methods:We created a data model of limitation types in RCT studies and annotated a corpus of 200 full-text RCT publications using this data model. We fine-tuned BERT-based sentence classification models to recognize the limitation sentences and their types. To address the small size of the annotated corpus, we experimented with data augmentation approaches, including Easy Data Augmentation (EDA) and Prompt-Based Data Augmentation (PromDA). We applied the best-performing model to a set of about 12K RCT publications to characterize self-acknowledged limitations at larger scale.Results:Our data model consists of 15 categories and 24 sub-categories (e.g., Population and its sub-category DiagnosticCriteria). We annotated 1090 instances of limitation types in 952 sentences (4.8 limitation sentences and 5.5 limitation types per article). A fine-tuned PubMedBERT model for limitation sentence classification improved upon our earlier model by about 1.5 absolute percentage points in F1 score (0.821 vs. 0.8) with statistical significance (). Our best-performing limitation type classification model, PubMedBERT fine-tuning with PromDA (Output View), achieved an F1 score of 0.7, improving upon the vanilla PubMedBERT model by 2.7 percentage points, with statistical significance ().Conclusion:The model could support automated screening tools which can be used by journals to draw the authors’ attention to reporting issues. Automatic extraction of limitations from RCT publications could benefit peer review and evidence synthesis, and support advanced methods to search and aggregate the evidence from the clinical trial literature.
MULTIFILE
Background: In their research reports, scientists are expected to discuss limitations that their studies have. Previous research showed that often, such discussion is absent. Also, many journals emphasize the importance of avoiding overstatement of claims. We wanted to see to what extent editorial handling and peer review affects self-acknowledgment of limitations and hedging of claims.Methods: Using software that automatically detects limitation-acknowledging sentences and calculates the level of hedging in sentences, we compared the submitted manuscripts and their ultimate publications of all randomized trials published in 2015 in 27 BioMed Central (BMC) journals and BMJ Open. We used mixed linear and logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of manuscript-publication pairs within journals, to quantify before-after changes in the mean numbers of limitation-acknowledging sentences, in the probability that a manuscript with zero self-acknowledged limitations ended up as a publication with at least one and in hedging scores.Results: Four hundred forty-six manuscript-publication pairs were analyzed. The median number of manuscripts per journal was 10.5 (interquartile range 6-18). The average number of distinct limitation sentences increased by 1.39 (95% CI 1.09-1.76), from 2.48 in manuscripts to 3.87 in publications. Two hundred two manuscripts (45.3%) did not mention any limitations. Sixty-three (31%, 95% CI 25-38) of these mentioned at least one after peer review. Changes in mean hedging scores were negligible.Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that editorial handling and peer review lead to more self-acknowledgment of study limitations, but not to changes in linguistic nuance.
DOCUMENT
ObjectivesOsteoarthritis (OA) of the foot-ankle complex is understudied. Understanding determinants of pain and activity limitations is necessary to improve management of foot OA. The aim of the present study was to investigate demographic, foot-specific and comorbidity-related factors associated with pain and activity limitations in patients with foot OA.MethodsThis exploratory cross-sectional study included 75 patients with OA of the foot and/or ankle joints. Demographic and clinical data were collected with questionnaires and by clinical examination. The outcome variables of pain and activity limitations were measured using the Foot Function Index (FFI). Potential determinants were categorized into demographic factors (e.g., age, sex), foot-specific factors (e.g., plantar pressure and gait parameters), and comorbidity-related factors (e.g., type and amount of comorbid diseases). Multivariable regression analyses with backward selection (p-out≥0.05) were performed in two steps, leading to a final model.ResultsOf all potential determinants, nine factors were selected in the first step. Five of these factors were retained in the second step (final model): female sex, pain located in the hindfoot, higher body mass index (BMI), neurological comorbidity, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score were positively associated with the FFI score. The explained variance (R2) for the final model was 0.580 (adjusted R2 = 0.549).ConclusionFemale sex, pain located in the hindfoot, higher BMI, neurological comorbidity and greater psychological distress were independently associated with a higher level of foot-related pain and activity limitations. By addressing these factors in the management of foot OA, pain and activity limitations may be reduced.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: To assess the factor structure, related constructs and internal consistency of the Child Activity Limitation Interview 21-Child version for use in Dutch-language countries.Methods: Cross-sectional validation study: After forward and back translation of the Dutch version of the Child Activity Limitation Interview 21-Child adolescents (11–21 years old) with chronic musculoskeletal pain completed an assessment. The assessment contained the Dutch Child Activity Limitation Interview, and questionnaires about demographics, pain intensity, functional disability, anxiety and depression. Internal consistency and construct validity were evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with oblique rotation) and hypotheses testing using pain intensity, activity limitations, anx- iety and depression as comparative constructs.Results: Seventy-four adolescents completed the assessment. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a two- factor structure, explaining 50% of the variance. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s a 1⁄4 0.91 total scale, a 1⁄4 0.90 Factor 1, a 1⁄4 0.80 Factor 2). All nine hypotheses were confirmed.Conclusion: The Dutch version can be used to assess pain-related disability in Dutch-speaking adolescents comparable to the study sample. Scores on both subscales provide insight into the severity of the pain- related disability in both daily routine and more physically vigorous activities.
DOCUMENT
MULTIFILE
Objectives: Decline in the performance of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and mobility may be preceded by symptoms the patient experiences, such as fatigue. The aim of this study is to investigate whether self-reported non-task-specific fatigue is a long-term risk factor for IADL-limitations and/or mobility performance in older adults after 10 years. Methods: A prospective study from two previously conducted cross-sectional studies with 10-year follow-up was conducted among 285 males and 249 females aged 40–79 years at baseline. Fatigue was measured by asking “Did you feel tired within the past 4 weeks?” (males) and “Do you feel tired?” (females). Self-reported IADLs were assessed at baseline and follow-up. Mobility was assessed by the 6-minute walk test. Gender-specific associations between fatigue and IADL-limitations and mobility were estimated by multivariable logistic and linear regression models. Results: A total of 18.6% of males and 28.1% of females were fatigued. After adjustment, the odds ratio for fatigued versus non-fatigued males affected by IADL-limitations was 3.3 (P=0.023). In females, the association was weaker and not statistically significant, with odds ratio being 1.7 (P=0.154). Fatigued males walked 39.1 m shorter distance than those non-fatigued (P=0.048). For fatigued females, the distance was 17.5 m shorter compared to those non-fatigued (P=0.479). Conclusion: Our data suggest that self-reported fatigue may be a long-term risk factor for IADL-limitations and mobility performance in middle-aged and elderly males but possibly not in females.
DOCUMENT
Background: Follow-up of stroke survivors is important to objectify activity limitations and/or participations restrictions. Responsive measurement tools are needed with a low burden for professional and patient. Aim: To examine the concurrent validity, floor and ceiling effects and responsiveness of both domains of the Late-Life Function and Disability Index Computerized Adaptive Test (LLFDI-CAT) in first-ever stroke survivors discharged to their home setting. Design: Longitudinal study. Setting: Community. Population: First ever stroke survivors. Methods: Participants were visited within three weeks after discharge and six months later. Stroke Impact Scale (SIS 3.0) and Five-Meter Walk Test (5MWT) outcomes were used to investigate concurrent validity of both domains, activity limitations, and participation restriction, of the LLFDI-CAT. Scores at three weeks and six months were used to examine floor and ceiling effects and change scores were used for responsiveness. Responsiveness was assessed using predefined hypotheses. Hypotheses regarding the correlations with change scores of related measures, unrelated measures, and differences between groups were formulated. Results: The study included 105 participants. Concurrent validity (R) of the LLFDI-CAT activity limitations domain compared with the physical function domain of the SIS 3.0 and with the 5MWT was 0.79 and -0.46 respectively. R of the LLFDI-CAT participation restriction domain compared with the participation domain of the SIS 3.0 and with the 5MWT was 0.79 and -0.41 respectively. A ceiling effect (15%) for the participation restriction domain was found at six months. Both domains, activity limitations and participation restrictions, of the LLFDI-CAT, scored well on responsiveness: 100% (12/12) and 91% (12/11) respectively of the predefined hypotheses were confirmed. Conclusions: The LLFDI-CAT seems to be a valid instrument and both domains are able to detect change over time. Therefore, the LLFDI-CAT is a promising tool to use both in practice and in research. Clinical rehabilitation impact: The LLFDI-CAT can be used in research and clinical practice.
MULTIFILE
ObjectiveFirst, to make an inventory of activity limitations commonly reported by knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Second, to evaluate treatment outcome using the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) and compare it to the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale (WOMAC-pf).DesignAn observational study with assessments before and immediately after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Five hundred and thirteen patients used the PSFS, a patient-reported tool to identify activity limitations and score the patient's ability to perform the activity on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), to report three activities in which they were limited. Frequencies and percentages of their highest-prioritized activity were calculated and categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Paired-samples T-tests were used to analyze the change in ability to perform the activities. Effect sizes of PSFS and WOMAC-pf were compared.ResultsMost patients indicated limitations in walking, walking up/down stairs, prolonged standing, and standing up from a chair. Following these common activities, 26 different activities were identified. The majority of these highest-prioritized activities fell under the first-level ICF category of Mobility. The ability to perform all activities significantly improved after treatment. Effect sizes ranged between 0.60 and 0.97 and were greater than the effect size of the WOMAC-pf (0.41).ConclusionKnee OA patients who undergo multidisciplinary rehabilitation exhibit improvements in performing daily activities. The PSFS is a valuable tool to evaluate patient-specific activity limitations and seems to capture improvements in activity limitations beyond the WOMAC-pf.
DOCUMENT
The current paper is a reflective discussion report that describes the advantages and limitations of online teaching and learning at master’s level healthcare education from the teachers’ point of view. The aim is to open dialogue between nursing educators and healthcare providers on how exclusively online education can ensure the development of healthcare professionals who master the requirements of today´s working life and contribute to innovations in healthcare. This paper addresses specifically how to strengthen master students’ interprofessional communication skills and improve their multicultural competence by developing a well-designed assignment in e-Learning environment. Perceptions and views are based on seven years of experience on online education in cooperation with two educators from different countries.
DOCUMENT
