{"title":"为什么我们会遇到使用旧版本的oswestry残疾指数的研究?研究人员对版本更新和旧版本寿命的认识。","authors":"R. Irmak","doi":"10.3233/WOR-213639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nThe Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a common outcome-measure used for assessment of spinal disorders with three officially updated versions. However, there are recently published articles that still use ODI-1.0. This suggests the existence of a block on information flow between developers and end-users.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nTo investigate the articles with missing citation to the latest ODI version, to calculate the life span of previous ODI version and to investigate the existence of a block on information flow.\n\n\nMETHODS\nPMC-PubMed citation dataset is analyzed by CNA and text processing methods.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe most important finding of this study is that there is no block on information flow between developers and users in terms of visibility in citations and full text access restrictions. Three different sub-networks are identified between ODI-1.0 and ODI-2.0 articles. 14% (165) of articles have citation to ODI-1.0 and ODI-2.0 version-articles. The time limit that is required for the new ODI version to become dominant in the literature is between 4 and 9 years.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThere is a missing citation problem in the ODI literature which is not a result of a block on information flow between developers and end-users.","PeriodicalId":49090,"journal":{"name":"Cognition Technology & Work","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why do we encounter studies with older versions of the oswestry disability index? Awareness of researchers about the version updates and the lifespan of older versions.\",\"authors\":\"R. Irmak\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/WOR-213639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nThe Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a common outcome-measure used for assessment of spinal disorders with three officially updated versions. However, there are recently published articles that still use ODI-1.0. This suggests the existence of a block on information flow between developers and end-users.\\n\\n\\nOBJECTIVE\\nTo investigate the articles with missing citation to the latest ODI version, to calculate the life span of previous ODI version and to investigate the existence of a block on information flow.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nPMC-PubMed citation dataset is analyzed by CNA and text processing methods.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nThe most important finding of this study is that there is no block on information flow between developers and users in terms of visibility in citations and full text access restrictions. Three different sub-networks are identified between ODI-1.0 and ODI-2.0 articles. 14% (165) of articles have citation to ODI-1.0 and ODI-2.0 version-articles. The time limit that is required for the new ODI version to become dominant in the literature is between 4 and 9 years.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nThere is a missing citation problem in the ODI literature which is not a result of a block on information flow between developers and end-users.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition Technology & Work\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition Technology & Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-213639\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition Technology & Work","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-213639","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Why do we encounter studies with older versions of the oswestry disability index? Awareness of researchers about the version updates and the lifespan of older versions.
BACKGROUND
The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a common outcome-measure used for assessment of spinal disorders with three officially updated versions. However, there are recently published articles that still use ODI-1.0. This suggests the existence of a block on information flow between developers and end-users.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the articles with missing citation to the latest ODI version, to calculate the life span of previous ODI version and to investigate the existence of a block on information flow.
METHODS
PMC-PubMed citation dataset is analyzed by CNA and text processing methods.
RESULTS
The most important finding of this study is that there is no block on information flow between developers and users in terms of visibility in citations and full text access restrictions. Three different sub-networks are identified between ODI-1.0 and ODI-2.0 articles. 14% (165) of articles have citation to ODI-1.0 and ODI-2.0 version-articles. The time limit that is required for the new ODI version to become dominant in the literature is between 4 and 9 years.
CONCLUSION
There is a missing citation problem in the ODI literature which is not a result of a block on information flow between developers and end-users.
期刊介绍：
Cognition, Technology & Work focuses on the practical issues of human interaction with technology within the context of work and, in particular, how human cognition affects, and is affected by, work and working conditions.
The aim is to publish research that normally resides on the borderline between people, technology, and organisations. Including how people use information technology, how experience and expertise develop through work, and how incidents and accidents are due to the interaction between individual, technical and organisational factors.
The target is thus the study of people at work from a cognitive systems engineering and socio-technical systems perspective.
The most relevant working contexts of interest to CTW are those where the impact of modern technologies on people at work is particularly important for the users involved as well as for the effects on the environment and plants. Modern society has come to depend on the safe and efficient functioning of a multitude of technological systems as diverse as industrial production, transportation, communication, supply of energy, information and materials, health and finance.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
