MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883163713 · doi:10.1186/s40814-018-0316-2

Getting fit for hip and knee replacement: a protocol for the Fit-Joints pilot randomized controlled trial of a multi-modal intervention in frail patients with osteoarthritis

2018· article· en· W2883163713 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed Negm, Courtney Kennedy, George Ioannidis, Olga Gajic‐Veljanoski, Justin Lee, Lehana Thabane, Jonathan D. Adachi, Sharon Marr, Arthur Lau, Stephanie A. Atkinson, Danielle Petruccelli, Justin DeBeer, Mitchell Winemaker, Victoria Avram, Benjamin Deheshi, Dale Williams, David Armstrong, Barry Lumb, Akbar Panju, Julie Richardson, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityImpactSt. Peter's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)OsteoarthritisIntervention (counseling)Joint replacementPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArthroplastySurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Joint replacement provides significant improvements in pain, physical function, and quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis. With a growing body of evidence indicating that frailty can be treated, it is important to determine whether targeting frailty reduction in hip and knee replacement patients improves post-operative outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to examine the feasibility of a parallel group RCT comparing a preoperative multi-modal frailty intervention to usual care in pre-frail/frail older adults undergoing elective unilateral hip or knee replacements. The secondary objectives areTo explore potential efficacy of the multi-modal frailty intervention in improving frailty and mobility between baseline and 6 weeks post-surgery using Fried frailty phenotype and short performance physical battery (SPPB) respectively.To explore potential efficacy of the multi-modal frailty intervention on post-operative healthcare services use. METHODS/DESIGN: In a parallel group pilot RCT, participants will be recruited from the Regional Joint Assessment Program in Hamilton, Canada. Participants who are (1) ≥ 60 years old; (2) pre-frail (score of 1 or 2) or frail (score of 3-5; Fried frailty phenotype); (3) having elective unilateral hip or knee replacement; and (4) having surgery wait times between 3 and 10 months will be recruited and randomized to either the intervention or usual care group. The multi-modal frailty intervention components will include (1) tailored exercise program (center-based and/or home-based) with education and cognitive behavioral change strategies; (2) protein supplementation; (3) vitamin D supplementation; and (4) medication review. The main comparative analysis will take place at 6 weeks post-operative. The outcome assessors, data entry personnel, and data analysts are blinded to treatment allocation. Assessments: feasibility will be assessed by recruitment rate, retention rate, and data collection completion. Frailty and healthcare use and other clinical outcomes will be assessed. The study outcomes will be collected at the baseline, 1 week pre-operative, and 6 weeks and 6 months post-operative. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to examine the feasibility of multi-modal frailty intervention in pre-frail/frail older adults undergoing hip or knee replacement. This study will inform the planning and designing of multi-modal frailty interventional studies in hip and knee replacement patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02885337.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.004

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207