Home-Based Compared with Hospital-Based Rehabilitation Program for Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of home-based with those of hospital-based rehabilitation on patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). DESIGN: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials; the studies were assessed with the modified Jadad scale. Ten trials involving 1240 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results revealed that home-based rehabilitation is not inferior to hospital-based rehabilitation according to the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index score, physical function, stiffness, walk test, and Oxford Knee Score at 12 or 52 weeks after TKA (P > 0.05). Neither pain nor knee flexion range of motion differed between the groups in the first 12 weeks. Unexpectedly, the pain score in the hospital-based group was better than that in the home-based group (P < 0.05), whereas the knee flexion range of motion in the home-based group was superior to that in the hospital-based group (P < 0.05) at 52 weeks. The meta-analysis revealed that the 2 rehabilitation programs have similar costs (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Home-based rehabilitation after primary TKA was comparable to hospital-based rehabilitation and thus is a significant alternative for patients.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".