Preoperative psychological distress and functional outcome after knee replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fifteen to thirty percent of patients report no or little functional improvement 12 months after total knee replacement (TKR). Self-reported psychological distress prior to knee replacement is common and there is some evidence that it may be an important determinant of poor functional outcome in the short to medium term. The aim of this study was to review systematically the literature on the relationship between preoperative psychological distress and post-operative functional outcome after TKR. METHODS: A literature search through the University of Melbourne Library Catalogue, Web of Science, SCOPUS-V.4, Medline, CINAHL PLUS, PsycINFO, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library was performed with the following key words and terms: joint replacement, arthroplasty, mental health, pre-operative distress, preoperative distress, psychological distress and knee. Additional screening of the reference lists was performed. All eligible publications were quality assessed by two independent reviewers according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The search found 10 cohort studies. The results of the studies were conflicting as six studies found a correlation between preoperative distress and functional outcome, whereas four did not. CONCLUSION: The results from this review are conflicting. The use of different questionnaires to assess psychological distress and functional outcome makes it difficult to draw any conclusions. Future research should focus on using appropriate scales to measure exposure and outcome. We suggest using disease-specific questionnaires to assess preoperative psychological distress and a sensitive knee-specific outcome score to assess post-operative function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".