MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174150137 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.00964

One-to-One Therapy Is Not Superior to Group or Home-Based Therapy After Total Knee Arthroplasty

2013· article· en· W2174150137 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victoria Ko, Justine Naylor, Ian A. Harris, Jack Crosbie, Anthony E. T. Yeo, Rajat Mittal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyOxford knee scoreRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)OsteoarthritisArthroplastyKnee painPsychological interventionRehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether center-based, one-to-one physical therapy provides superior outcomes compared with group-based therapy or a simple monitored home-based program in terms of functional and physical recovery and health-related quality of life after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients awaiting primary total knee arthroplasty at two Sydney metropolitan hospitals were enrolled into this prospective, randomized, superiority trial preoperatively. At two weeks postoperatively, participants were randomly allocated to one of three six-week treatment programs (twelve one-to-one therapy sessions, twelve group-based therapy sessions, or a monitored home program) with use of a computer-generated sequence. Self-reported outcomes (Oxford Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and function subscales, and Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Survey) and performance-based functional outcomes were measured over twelve months postoperatively by a blinded assessor. The primary outcome was knee pain and function measured with use of the Oxford Knee Score at ten weeks postoperatively. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-nine patients (eighty-five who had one-to-one therapy, eighty-four who had group-based therapy, and eighty who were in the monitored home program) were randomized and 233 were available for their one-year follow-up assessment. Participants who received one-to-one therapy did not have a superior Oxford Knee Score at week ten compared with those who received the alternative interventions; the median score was 32 points for the one-to-one therapy group, 36 points for the group-based therapy group, and 34 points for the monitored home program group (p = 0.20). Furthermore, one-to-one therapy was not superior compared with group-based therapy or monitored home program in improving any of the secondary outcomes across the first postoperative year. No adverse events were associated with any of the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: One-to-one therapy does not provide superior self-reported or performance-based outcomes compared with group-based therapy or a monitored home program, in the short term and the long term after total knee arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations89
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207