Reporting of post-operative rehabilitation interventions for Total knee arthroplasty: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the completeness of reporting of exercise adherence and exercise interventions delivered as part of clinical trials of post-operative total knee replacement (TKA) rehabilitation. DESIGN: Scoping review LITERATURE SEARCH: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCT) that examined post-operative exercise-based interventions for total knee arthroplasty were eligible for inclusion. Studies that were multifactorial or contained exercise interventions for both hip and knee arthroplasty were also included. DATA SYNTHESIS: The definition, type of measurement used and outcome for exercise adherence were collected and analyzed descreptively. Quality of reporting of exercise interventions were assessed using the Consensus for Exercise Reporting Tool (CERT) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: There were a total of 112 RCTs included in this review. The majority of RCTs (63%, n = 71) did not report exercise adherence. Only 23% (n = 15) of studies provided a definition of adherence. RCTs were of poor quality, with 85% (n = 95) of studies having high or unclear risk of bias. Reporting of exercise interventions was poor, with only 4 items (of 19) (21%) of the CERT adequately reported (88-99%), with other items not fulfilled on at least 60% of the RCTs. There were no RCTs that had fulfilled all the criteria for the CERT. CONCLUSION: The RCTs included in this study poorly reported exercise adherence, as well as description of the post-operative TKA rehabilitation intervention. Future RCTs should use valid and reliable measures of adherence and a proper tool for reporting of exercise interventions (e.g., CERT, TiDER). PRE-REGISTRATION: OSF: https://osf.io/9ku8a/.
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 | 0.255 | 0.579 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".