Effectiveness of an interactive virtual telerehabilitation system in patients after total knee arthoplasty: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a new interactive virtual telerehabilitation system and a conventional programme following total knee arthroplasty. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, single-blind clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 142 total knee arthroplasty patients. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either: (i) conventional out-patient physical therapy; or (ii) interactive virtual telerehabilitation system. The main outcome was function assessed with active range of knee movement. Other variables, such as muscle strength, walk speed, pain and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, were also collected. Comparisons were made on the basis of data collected routinely before surgery, at the end of the rehabilitation programme, and at 3 months follow-up. Quantitative variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U test. The agreed alpha risk for all hypothesis testing was 0.05. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between groups were comparable. All participants improved after the 2-week intervention on all outcome variables (p < 0.05). Patients in the interactive virtual telerehabilitation group achieved improvements in the functional variables similar to those achieved in the conventional therapy group. CONCLUSION: A 2-week interactive virtual telerehabilitation programme is at least as effective as conventional therapy. Telerehabilitation is a promising alternative to traditional face-to-face therapies after discharge from total knee arthroplasty, especially for those patients who have difficulty with transportation to rehabilitation centres.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".