The effect of preoperative training on functional recovery in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative training on functional recovery in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. METHOD: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about relevant studies were searched from PubMed (1996-2017.4), Embase (1980-2017.4), and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL 2017.4). Nine studies which evaluated the effect of preoperative training on functional recovery in patients undergoing TKA were included in our meta-analysis. Meta-analysis results were collected and analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center the Collaboration 2014). RESULTS: Nine studies containing 777 patients meet the inclusion criteria. Our pooled data analysis indicated that preoperative training was as effective as the control group in terms of visual analogue scale(VAS) score at ascend stairs (P = 0.41) and descend stars (P = 0.80), rang of motion (ROM) of flexion (P = 0.86) and extension (P = 0.60), short form 36 (SF-36) of physical function score (P = 0.07) and bodily pain score (P = 0.39), western Ontario and Macmaster universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) function score (P = 0.10), and time up and go (P = 0.28). While differences were found in length of stay (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that preoperative training have the similar efficacy on functional recovery in patients following total knee arthroplasty compared with control group. However, high quality studies with more patients were needed in future.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".