Efficacy of a 12-month, monitored home exercise programme compared with normal care commencing 2 months after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a delayed home exercise programme compared with normal care after primary total knee arthroplasty. DESIGN: Single-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 108 participants (61% females, mean age 69 years [standard deviation 8.7]), were randomized to a home-based exercise group (EG, n = 53) or to a control group (CG, n = 55). METHODS: Two months post-operatively, the EG received a home exercise programme, while the CG received no additional guidance. The outcome measurements were: pain and disability, measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the Short Form-36 questionnaire (SF-36); maximal walking speed; isometric knee muscle strength; and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Measurements were made at baseline and at 12 months thereafter. RESULTS: At the 12-month follow-up, maximal walking speed (p < 0.001) and knee flexion strength (p = 0.009) were significantly greater in the EG. Both groups showed similar improvements in all of the WOMAC subscale scores, the SF-36 summary scores and the TUG time. CONCLUSION: Home-based training was not superior to normal care with regard to pain, disability or HRQoL, but resulted in greater improvement in objectively measured physical performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".