93 The Effects of Kinesiophobia on Outcome following Total Knee Replacement: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Kinesiophobia, the fear of physical movement and activity related to injury vulnerability, has been linked to sub-optimal outcomes following total knee replacement (TKR). This systematic review has two aims: to define the relationship between kinesiophobia and functional outcomes, pain and range of motion following TKR, and to evaluate published treatments for kinesiophobia following TKR. Method A primary search was performed in March 2020. English-language studies recruiting adult primary TKR patients, using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort or case control studies, and the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for randomised controlled trials. Results All thirteen included papers (82 identified) showed adequately low risk of methodological bias. TSK1 (activity avoidance) correlated with WOMAC functional score at 12 months in three studies (r = 0.20 p < 0.05, R = 0.317 p = 0.001, and correlation coefficient 0.197 p = 0.005). TSK score significantly correlated with mean active range of motion (ROM) at six months (105.33 (SD = 12.34) vs 85.53 (SD = 14.77) p = 0.000) post-operation. Three post-operative interventions improved TSK score vs control following TKR: a home-based functional exercise programme (TSK -14.30 (SD = 0.80) vs -2.10 (SD = 0.80) p < 0.001)), an outpatient CBT programme (TSK 27.76 (SD = 4.56) vs 36.54 (SD = 3.58), and video-based psychological treatment (TSK 24 (SD = 5) vs 29 (SD = 5) p < 0.01). Conclusions Kinesiophobia negatively affects functional outcomes up until one year post-operatively, while active ROM is reduced up to six months post procedure. Post-operative functional and psychological interventions can improve kinesiophobia following TKR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".