Is the Treatment Gap in Knee Osteoarthritis Real? A Qualitative Study of Surgeons' Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic condition characterized by loss of joint cartilage that leads to persistent pain, loss of function, and disability. It has been reported that a treatment gap exists in a subset of knee OA patients who are unresponsive to conservative treatment yet are unsuitable for or unwilling to undergo more invasive, irreversible, surgical procedures. METHODS: Ten orthopedic healthcare professionals participated in a focus group (n=5) and semistructured interviews (n=5). We explored their perceptions on the treatment gap in knee OA patients and their opinions of the KineSpring® Knee Implant System. RESULTS: Among the responses of orthopedic healthcare professionals, we identified seven themes: (1) Delaying operative treatment for knee OA patients is very important. (2) Unrealistic expectations of younger patients play an important role in management of knee OA. (3) A treatment gap does exist. (4) Management of knee OA should be tailored to the individual patient. (5) The ability to delay total knee replacement without compromising the ability to do it in the future is important for the acceptance of the KineSpring System. (6) Improving patient lives by decreasing pain, improving function, and potentially delaying arthroplasty is important. (7) A well-designed randomized control trial and further evidence regarding the KineSpring System is desired. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic healthcare professionals are enthusiastic about the prospect of the KineSpring System as an option to help close the treatment gap in knee OA. Focusing only on clinical trials with long-term data may be impractical and deprive patients and society of benefits that can be gained while trial data are maturing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".