Progression of health‐related quality of life of patients waiting for total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains the surgical gold standard treatment for patients suffering from end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. However, due to the high demand and scarce medical resources, the waiting time for surgery is astoundingly lengthy. Controversies are shown in numerous studies, on whether physical functionality and mental status decline or remain stable over the waiting period. This study aims to evaluate the progression in patients suffering from end-stage OA while on the waiting list for TKA. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients suffering from end-stage OA who were on the TKA waiting list were prospectively recruited from our orthopaedics specialist clinic. They were assessed once a year for 2 years or until surgery. The Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), SF-36 self-rated questionnaire and 15D health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaire were used as outcome measurements for functionality and disability assessment. RESULTS: Patients on the waiting list for TKA showed a progressive increase in pain and disability level within the first year (P = .035). Those patients waiting for more than 2 years showed worsening HRQoL (P < .05) as time progressed. However, no significant difference was observed between the first and second years. CONCLUSIONS: A decline in functionality and increase in disability were shown in follow-up assessments conducted every year. However, a plateau effect is observed with end-stage disease. This emphasizes that more active conservative management programmes should be introduced and implemented while patients are enlisted on the TKA waiting list. Moreover, timely surgical intervention can improve patients' overall function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study involved human participants and reports health-related outcomes concerning the HRQoL in patients with end-stage OA of the knee. Thus, it was registered, retrospectively, as a clinical trial under the U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) on March 4, 2018.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".