Costs and effectiveness of pre‐ and post‐operative home physiotherapy for total knee replacement: randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pre- and post-operative physiotherapy at home for unilateral total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial set in participants' homes (four primary care trust areas) and physiotherapy outpatients in a South Yorkshire teaching hospital trust, 160 osteoarthritis patients waiting for unilateral TKR were randomly allocated to intervention (home) group (n=80) or control (hospital outpatient) group (n=80). The intervention group had pre- and post-operative home visits for assessment and treatment by a community physiotherapist. Outcome measures were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured by the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) pre-operatively and at 12 weeks post-TKR operation; patient satisfaction; and NHS resource use. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in the primary outcome measure, the WOMAC pain score, or any other HRQoL score. The home group had a significantly greater mean number of physiotherapy sessions than the hospital group [mean difference 5.2 sessions, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-6.3 to -4.1; P=0.001]. There was no significant difference in the total NHS costs per patient between groups. However, home physiotherapy for TKR was significantly more expensive (mean difference-pound136.5, 95% CI=- pound160 to-pound113; P=0.001). Patients were equally satisfied with physiotherapy at home or in hospital; however, more of the home group would choose their location for physiotherapy again. CONCLUSIONS: Although home physiotherapy was as effective and as acceptable to patients as hospital outpatient physiotherapy for unilateral TKR, it was more expensive. Additional pre-operative home physiotherapy did not improve patient-perceived health outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".