Mild radiographic osteoarthritis is associated with increased pain and dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty when compared with severe osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The association between severity of radiographic osteoarthritis with patient pain, function, and satisfaction following total knee arthroplasty has been disputed. The discrepancies in current literature prompt us to further examine this association in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The OVID-Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception up to Mar 2020. The main independent variable was osteoarthritis severity as defined by preoperative radiographs. The outcomes measured were pain, function and satisfaction following total knee arthroplasty. A minimum of three studies assessing the same patient-reported outcome measures were included in the meta-analysis, as well as those separating patients by chronic pain or dissatisfaction. RESULTS: 29 studies were included in this study. Significant heterogeneity was seen between radiographic evaluation and reported outcomes. Patients with only mild radiographic osteoarthritis were more likely to suffer from chronic pain (odds ratio = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.80-3.34, p < 0.001) and dissatisfaction (odds ratio = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.79-3.31, p < 0.001) compared to patients with severe osteoarthritis. A significant association was found between mild radiographic severity and lower total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis scores (95% CI = - 0.37-0.06, p = 0.006) as well as Knee Society Scores (CI: - 0.54-0.16, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with mild radiographic osteoarthritis are anticipated to gain less from total knee arthroplasty compared to those with severe osteoarthritis. They are also at risk for chronic pain and dissatisfaction and should be consulted about this risk prior to surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".