MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275770230 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.n.01066

In-Home Telerehabilitation Compared with Face-to-Face Rehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty

2015· article· en· W2275770230 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalUniversité de SherbrookeSt Mary's Hospital CentreCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelerehabilitationMedicineWOMACPhysical therapyRehabilitationArthroplastyOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalRange of motionOrthopedic surgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHealth careSurgeryTelemedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The availability of less resource-intensive alternatives to home visits for rehabilitation following orthopaedic surgeries is important, given the increasing need for home care services and the shortage of health resources. The goal of this trial was to determine whether an in-home telerehabilitation program is not clinically inferior to a face-to-face home visit approach (standard care) after hospital discharge of patients following a total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Two hundred and five patients who had a total knee arthroplasty were randomized before hospital discharge to the telerehabilitation group or the face-to-face home visit group. Both groups received the same rehabilitation intervention for two months after hospital discharge. Patients were evaluated at baseline (before total knee arthroplasty), immediately after the rehabilitation intervention (two months after discharge), and two months later (four months after discharge). The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire at the last follow-up evaluation. Secondary outcome measures included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire, functional and strength tests, and knee range of motion. The noninferiority margin was set at 9% for the WOMAC. RESULTS: The demographic and clinical characteristics of the two groups of patients were similar at baseline. At the last follow-up evaluation, the mean differences between the groups with regard to the WOMAC gains, adjusted for baseline values, were near zero (for 182 patients in the per-protocol analysis): -1.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.6%, 2.3%) for the total score, -1.6% (95% CI: -5.9%, 2.8%) for pain, -0.7% (95% CI: -6.8%, 5.4%) for stiffness, and -1.8% (95% CI: -5.9%, 2.3%) for function. The confidence intervals were all within the predetermined zone of noninferiority. The secondary outcomes had similar results, as did the intention-to-treat analysis, which was conducted afterward for 198 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated the noninferiority of in-home telerehabilitation and support its use as an effective alternative to face-to-face service delivery after hospital discharge of patients following a 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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