MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134726920 · doi:10.1177/0363546509359763

Two- to 4-Year Follow-up to a Comparison of Home Versus Physical Therapy-Supervised Rehabilitation Programs After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2010· article· en· W2134726920 on OpenAlexaff
John A. Grant, Nicholas G. Mohtadi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialAnterior cruciate ligamentQuality of life (healthcare)Confidence intervalRange of motionSagittal planeHamstringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There have been no long-term follow-up studies comparing a predominantly home-based rehabilitation program with a standard physical therapy program after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Demonstrating the long-term success of such a cost-effective program would be beneficial to guide future rehabilitation practice. PURPOSE: To determine whether there were any differences in long-term outcome between recreational athletes who performed a physical therapy-supervised rehabilitation program and those who performed a primarily home-based rehabilitation program in the first 3 months after ACL reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Patients were randomized before ACL reconstruction surgery to either the physical therapy-supervised (17 physical therapy sessions) or home-based (4 physical therapy sessions) program. Eighty-eight of the original 129 patients returned 2 to 4 years after surgery to assess their long-term clinical outcomes. Primary outcome was the ACL quality of life questionnaire (ACL QOL). Secondary outcomes were bilateral difference in knee extension and flexion range of motion, sagittal plane knee laxity, relative quadriceps and hamstring strength, and objective International Knee Documentation Committee score. Unpaired t tests and a chi-square test were used for the comparisons. RESULTS: The home-based group had a significantly higher mean ACL QOL score (80.0 +/- 16.2) than the physical therapy-supervised group (69.9 +/- 22.0) a mean of 38 months after surgery (P = .02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 18.4). The mean change in ACL QOL score from before surgery to follow-up was not significantly different between the groups (physical therapy = 40.0, home = 45.8, P = .26, 95% CI: -15.8, 4.4). There were no significant differences in the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: This long-term study upholds the short-term findings of the original randomized clinical trial by demonstrating that patients who participate in a predominantly home-based rehabilitation program in the first 3 months after ACL reconstruction have similar 2- to 4-year outcomes compared with those patients who participate in a more clinically supervised program.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations90
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207