Do dissatisfied patients have unrealistic expectations? A systematic review and best-evidence synthesis in knee and hip arthroplasty patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract End-stage osteoarthritis is commonly treated with joint replacement. Despite high clinical success rates, up to 28% of patients are dissatisfied with the outcome. This best-evidence synthesis aimed to review studies with different forms of study design and methodology that examined the relationship between (fulfilment of) outcome expectations of hip and knee patients and satisfaction with outcome. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane, and Google Scholar to identify studies conducted up to November 2017. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In this best-evidence synthesis systematic review, the following main results could be seen. In only half of all studies were preoperative expectations associated with level of satisfaction, while in almost all studies (93%), fulfilment of expectations was related to satisfaction. The effect of met expectations did not differ between hip and knee patients or study design. Fulfilment of expectations seems to be consistently associated with patient satisfaction with outcome. Emphasis in future research must be placed on the operationalization and measurement of expectations and satisfaction to determine the (strength of the) influence of these different forms of assessment on the (existence of the) relationship. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:226-240. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190015
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 | 0.018 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".