Perspectives of Canadian Stakeholders on Criteria for Appropriateness for Total Joint Arthroplasty in Patients With Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As rates of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for osteoarthritis (OA) rise, there is a need to ensure appropriate use. We undertook this study to develop criteria for appropriate use of TJA. METHODS: In prior work, we used qualitative methods to separately assess OA patients' and arthroplasty surgeons' perceptions regarding appropriateness of patient candidates for TJA. The current study reviewed the appropriateness themes that emerged from each group, and a series of statements were developed to reflect each unique theme or criterion. A group of arthroplasty surgeons then indicated their level of agreement with each statement using electronic voting. Where ≤70% agreed or disagreed, the criterion was discussed and revised, and revoting occurred. In standardized telephone interviews, OA patient focus group participants indicated their level of agreement with each revised criterion. RESULTS: Qualitative research in 58 OA patients and 14 arthroplasty surgeons identified 11 appropriateness criteria. Member-checking in 15 surgeons (including 5 who had participated in the qualitative study) resulted in agreement on 6 revised criteria. These included evidence of arthritis on joint examination, patient-reported symptoms negatively impacting quality of life, an adequate trial of appropriate nonsurgical treatment, realistic patient expectations of surgery, mental and physical readiness of patient for surgery, and patient-surgeon agreement that potential benefits exceed risks. Thirty-six of the original 58 OA patient focus group participants (62.1%) participated in the member-check interviews and endorsed all 6 criteria. CONCLUSION: Patients and surgeons jointly endorsed 6 criteria for assessment of TJA appropriateness in OA patients. Prospective validation of these criteria (assessed preoperatively) as predictive of postoperative patient-reported outcomes is under way and will inform development of a surgeon-patient decision-support tool for assessment of TJA appropriateness.
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 | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".