Association Between Symptom Duration and Patient‐Reported Outcomes Before and After Hip Replacement Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients experience discomfort and compromised quality of life while waiting for hip replacement. Symptom duration may affect quality of life attained following surgery. We undertook this study to investigate the impact of symptom duration on patient-reported postsurgical outcomes from hip replacement surgery. METHODS: National observational data collected before and after hip replacement surgery in England between 2009 and 2016 were used to investigate determinants of symptom duration prior to surgery and the relationship between symptom duration and presurgical and postsurgical patient-reported outcomes. Multivariable linear regression models were used to estimate associations between patient-reported outcomes and symptom duration, controlling for a range of covariates. RESULTS: The sample included 209,192 patients; most (69%) experienced symptoms for 1-5 years. A few patients (14%) experienced symptoms for <1 year, for longer than 5 years (6-10 years [11%]), or for >10 years (5%). Symptom duration decreased overall over the studied time period and was shorter among patients who were male, older, and from areas of lesser deprivation. Patients with a symptom duration <1 year had better postsurgical pain and function outcomes (Oxford Hip Score [OHS] 0.875 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.777, 0.973]) than those with 1-5 years symptom duration in an adjusted model. Conversely, those with symptom duration >5 years had increasingly poorer postsurgical outcomes (OHS -0.730 [95% CI -0.847, -0.613] for those with disease duration 6-10 years and OHS -1.112 [95% CI -1.278, -0.946] for those with disease duration >10 years). CONCLUSION: Symptom duration prior to hip replacement has become more standardized in England over time. However, increasing duration remains a significant predictor of poorer outcomes after surgery.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".