A longitudinal study exploring pain control, treatment and service provision for individuals with end-stage lower limb osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the level of pain control, treatment and service provision amongst individuals with end-stage lower limb osteoarthritis who were on the waiting list for hip or knee joint replacement. METHODS: A total of 105 patients on a waiting list for primary knee or hip replacement from a regional orthopaedic centre in the UK were recruited. The study was longitudinal and based on direct interviews at baseline and 6 months, with a postal questionnaire at 3 months. Data were collected on pain by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. In addition, medication and the use of services and treatments were recorded. RESULTS: Participants experienced high levels of pain as measured by VAS [mean 7.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.6-7.5] and WOMAC pain (mean 11.2; 95% CI 10.6-11.9). The majority of participants (78, 74%) was taking analgesics more than once a day. Primary care utilization was variable. Of the 74 (70%) participants who had consulted their GP in the previous 3 months, 41 (55%) had not discussed their pain or osteoarthritis during these consultations. Just below one-third of participants (31, 30%) reported to have received information on osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Pain appears to be difficult to manage in individuals with end-stage lower limb osteoarthritis. Individuals appeared not to be taking appropriate levels of analgesia in relation to levels of pain. Improvements are required in the provision of information on pain and osteoarthritis. Patients would benefit from more proactive management by health professionals (especially by GPs).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".