MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postoperative Rehabilitation Protocols for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

2006· review· en· W2049031467 on OpenAlexaff
Amar A. Suchak, Carol Spooner, David C. Reid, Nadr M. Jomha

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAchilles tendonRehabilitationSports medicineSurgeryTendonOrthopedic surgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The optimal postoperative rehabilitation protocol after surgical repair of an Achilles tendon rupture is unknown. Although a 6-week cast immobilization is common, many early functional rehabilitation protocols have been implemented. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to determine if an early functional protocol for surgical repair of an acute Achilles tendon rupture improves subjective patient satisfaction without an increase in rerupture rates. Secondary outcomes of interest from an early functional protocol include infections, range of motion, strength, and minor complications. An extensive literature search for randomized or quasirandomized studies identified six trials involving 315 patients. Early functional treatment protocols, when compared with postoperative immobilization, led to more excellent rated subjective responses and no difference in rerupture rate. Our conclusions are based on six trials with small sample sizes, and larger randomized trials are required to confirm these results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, Level II (Systematic review of Level II studies or Level I studies with inconsistent results).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.243
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations117
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207