Search

Measurement literacy is required for strong scientific reasoning, effective experimental design, conceptual and empirical validation of measurement quantities, and the intelligible interpretation of error in theory construction. This discourse examines how issues in measurement are posed and resolved and addresses potential misunderstandings. Examples drawn from across the sciences are used to show that measurement literacy promotes the goals of scientific discourse and provides the necessary foundation for carving out perspectives and carrying out interventions in science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When asked to assess the deductive validity of an argument,people are influenced by their prior knowledge of the content.Recently, two competing explanations for this belief biaseffect have been proposed, each based on signal detectiontheory. Under a response bias explanation, people set morelenient decision criteria for believable than for unbelievablearguments. Alternatively, believable and unbelievablearguments may differ in subjective argument strength for bothvalid and invalid items. Two experiments tested theseaccounts by asking participants to assess the validity ofcategorical syllogisms and rate their confidence. Conclusion-believability was manipulated either within- or between-groups. A two-step signal detection model was applied toexamine the effects on the relative location of the decisionthreshold and the distributions of argument strength.Equivalent belief bias effects were found when believabilitywas manipulated within- and between-groups, supporting theview that the belief bias effect is due to response bias.

Laboratory-based mock crime studies have often been interpreted to mean that (i) eyewitness confidence in an identification made from a lineup is a weak indicator of accuracy and (ii) sequential lineups are diagnostically superior to traditional simultaneous lineups. Largely as a result, juries are increasingly encouraged to disregard eyewitness confidence, and up to 30% of law enforcement agencies in the United States have adopted the sequential procedure. We conducted a field study of actual eyewitnesses who were assigned to simultaneous or sequential photo lineups in the Houston Police Department over a 1-y period. Identifications were made using a three-point confidence scale, and a signal detection model was used to analyze and interpret the results. Our findings suggest that (i) confidence in an eyewitness identification from a fair lineup is a highly reliable indicator of accuracy and (ii) if there is any difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two lineup formats, it likely favors the simultaneous procedure.

ObjectiveAnecdotal evidence suggests that MRI frequently underestimates the size of cartilage defects when compared with final lesion size after debridement of all degenerated tissue. This has potential implications for the choice of cartilage repair technique since most treatment algorithms are primarily driven by defect size. We conducted an investigation comparing size estimates based on preoperative MRI with final defect size after debridement. Our aim was to provide surgeons with more objective data to assist in predicting true defect size based on MRI scanning.DesignPatients were included in this retrospective study if they had undergone preoperative MRI and open cartilage repair within 12 months to minimize potential confounding by defect progression on MRI. Defect sizes measured after debridement were obtained from surgical notes and compared with MRI size estimates by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists.ResultsThirty-eight patients were enrolled with a median age of 37 years, median number of 1.7 defects, and a total median defect area of 6 cm(2) per knee. Preoperative MRI scanning had predicted a median defect area of 3.6 cm(2). This reflected a difference of 65% (P < 0.001) between MRI and final defect area after debridement when 85% of all individual defects were larger than predicted by preoperative MRI.ConclusionsOur study compared the size of cartilage defects measured by preoperative MRI with surgical measurements after debridement. On average, the final total defect area per knee was 65% larger than estimated preoperatively by MRI. Individual defects were larger than predicted by 47% to 377%, depending on defect location.

Background: Traumatic finger amputations are a common and well-known hand injury, yet there are few studies addressing long-term epidemiologic data and associated mechanisms of injury. This paper aims to use a large national database to identify the relationship of patient demographics and mechanism of injury in finger amputations. Methods: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) was queried for finger amputations in the United States from 2010 to 2019. Patient demographic information was collected and analyzed by gender, race, age, and further statistical analysis was performed to determine correlations with consumer products. Results: Finger amputations accounted for an estimated 234,304 emergency department visits from 2010 to 2019. Most of the patients were male (79%) and identified as white (46.2%). The most commonly implicated products overall were power saws and related power tools, followed by doors and then lawn mowers. A bimodal age incidence was observed with the highest incidence rates occurring in children ages 0 to 4, followed by a second peak incidence rate in the adults ages 65 to 74. The most common mechanisms of injury were found to differ in patients less than 19 and those 20 and over. Conclusion: Traumatic finger amputations have a bimodal incidence with changing epidemiology and mechanism of injury with age. The first peak occurs from ages 0 to 4, involves predominantly doors, and has a male to female ratio of 1.30. The second peak occurs from ages 65 to 74, involves mostly power saws, and has a male to female ratio of 6.68. Level of Evidence: Prognostic, Level IV [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purposes of this study were to analyze the trends in Oxford level of evidence (LOE), LOE of most-cited articles, and association between LOE and journal impact factor (IF) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) over a 10-year period (2009-2018) in 3 prominent hand surgery journals, specifically HAND, Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume) (JHS), and Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) (JHSE). Methods: All articles published from 2009 to 2018 in HAND, JHS, and JHSE were reviewed for assigned or available LOE. Data were pooled and analyzed for trends in LOE; relationship among IF, SJR, and LOE; and citation density. Results: A total of 3921 total publications were tabulated from 2009 to 2018, with the majority of studies being level V (1700, 43%) and fewer studies being level I (146, 4%). Over the 10-year study period, there was no significant change in frequency of level I studies for any journal. HAND trended significantly toward higher LOE, JHS trended toward higher LOE, and JHSE trended toward decreased LOE without significance. Among all journals, the annual number of articles and the average LOE were independent significant predictors of IF and SJR. Statistically significant correlations were found between citation density and LOE for JHS and HAND. Conclusions: Higher quality evidence is becoming more prevalent in the hand surgery literature over the past 10 years. Annual articles, average LOE, and level I and II and level IV articles were significant predictors of increasing IF and SJR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine if scapular anatomy differs between younger and older patients with atraumatic full-thickness supraspinatus tears. Methods: The critical shoulder angle, acromial index and lateral acromial angle were measured on standardized radiographs of two groups of patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of full-thickness degenerative supraspinatus tears. Group 1 included 61 patients under the age of 50 years while Group 2 included 45 patients over the age of 70 years. The mean critical shoulder angle, acromial index, and lateral acromial angle were then compared. Results: There was no significant difference between groups for the critical shoulder angle (p =.433), acromial index (p =.881) or lateral acromial angle (p =.263). Interobserver reliability for critical shoulder angle, acromial index, and lateral acromial angle was nearly perfect (interclass correlation coefficient 0.996, 0.996, 0.998, respectively). No significant correlation existed between age and critical shoulder angle (p =.309), acromial index (p =.484) or lateral acromial angle (p =.685). Discussion: While the critical shoulder angle and acromial index were found to be high and in the typical range for patients with rotator cuff tears in both groups, there were no significant differences in acromial morphology between Groups 1 and 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The purpose is to evaluate the influence of obesity (BMI 30 to 39.9 kg/m 2 ) on surgical outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was performed examining the outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in both a normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2) and an obese (BMI 30 to 39.9 kg/m2) patient population, specifically looking at functional outcomes and range of motion. Secondary variables analyzed were surgical time, complications, and medical comorbidities. Results: 52 normal weight patients (mean BMI 23.7 ± 2.1) and 59 obese patients (mean BMI 34.0 ± 2.4) were included. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements in VAS, SANE and ASES scores (P < 0.0001), however there were significantly better outcomes in the normal weight group in VAS (0.56 ± 0.96 vs 1.42 ± 2.22; P = 0.0108), ASES (96.1 ± 5.8 vs 90.6 ± 15.6; P = 0.0192), and internal rotation (9.2 ± 3.0 vs 10.9 ± 2.3; P = 0.0010). Additionally, the obese cohort had more complications, longer surgical times, and a greater comorbid background. Conclusions: Obesity is associated with significantly more comorbid conditions, surgical complications, longer surgical time, and worse patient reported outcomes than normal weight patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]