Patients on the waiting list for total hip replacement: a 1‐year follow‐up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Untreated osteoarthritis (OA) in the hip causes pain and reduced physical and social functioning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of waiting time on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functional condition and dependence on help at the time of surgery and during follow-up 1 year after surgery. A further aim was to elucidate possible differences between men and women. Two hundred and twenty-nine consecutively included patients with OA in the hip were interviewed when assigned to the waiting list, again 1 week prior to surgery with unilateral total hip replacement (THR), and 1 year after surgery. Health-related quality of life and function were measured using the Nottingham Health Profile, EuroQoL and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The result showed that the average waiting time was 239 days, that 15% of the patients were operated on within 3 months, and that 21% had to wait more than 6 months. At the time of surgery, HRQOL had deteriorated significantly (p < 0.05) and the number of patients receiving support from relatives had increased from 31% to 58% during the wait. At the 1-year follow-up, both HRQOL and functional condition had improved significantly despite the wait, and the need for support from relatives had decreased to 11% (p < 0.001). In conclusion, long waiting time for THR is detrimental to patients' HRQOL causing reduced functional condition, pain and increased need for support from relatives, which limit the independence in daily life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".