Orthopedic surgeons feel that there is a treatment gap in management of early OA: international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand orthopedic surgeons' views, preferences, and awareness on "treatment gap" and various conservative and surgical treatments for early to mid-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire on the treatment of knee OA was developed in collaboration with orthopedic surgeons with extensive research experience and methodological expertise. The survey was distributed electronically to a group of international orthopedic surgeons and surgical trainees. The data were collected, reviewed, and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three surgeons and surgical trainees completed the survey. The respondents reported that about 58 % of the patients they treat have early to mid-stage knee OA (Kellgren and Lawrence grade I-III). There were significantly higher usage of medications and lower usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (P < 0.05) in developing countries than in developed countries. Four of five surgeons (84 %) perceived a need for better treatments for younger (<60 years old) physically active OA patients in which UKA or TKA is not indicated. Most respondents (80 %) would be willing to adjust age/activity threshold for surgery if a procedure was reversible and recovery was minimal. Two of three surgeons (68.4 %) perceived a treatment gap for early knee OA. However, effective treatments for patients within the treatment gap would have substantial positive social, and economic impacts. CONCLUSION: The study suggests an ongoing treatment gap for patients with early knee OA and the need for better evidence to guide practice.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".