MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200563163 · doi:10.1097/cm9.0000000000001847

Virtual reality-based rehabilitation in patients following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021· review· en· W4200563163 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Medical Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryMEDLINEMeta-analysisPhysical therapySystematic reviewRehabilitationWOMACVisual analogue scalePsychological interventionPsycINFOStrictly standardized mean differenceOsteoarthritisSurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Physical therapy is regarded as an essential aspect in achieving optimal outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has made face-to-face rehabilitation inaccessible. Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly regarded as a potentially effective option for offering health care interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigate VR-based rehabilitation's effectiveness on outcomes following TKA. Methods: From inception to May 22, 2021, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, PsycINFO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang were comprehensively searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of VR-based rehabilitation on patients following TKA according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results: Eight studies were included in the systematic review, and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. VR-based rehabilitation significantly improved visual analog scale (VAS) scores within 1 month (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.79 to −0.08, P = 0.02), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) within 1 month (SMD: −0.71; 95% CI: −1.03 to −0.40, P < 0.01), and the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score (HSS) within 1 month and between 2 months and 3 months (MD: 7.62; 95% CI: 5.77 to 9.47, P < 0.01; MD: 10.15; 95% CI: 8.03 to 12.27, P < 0.01; respectively) following TKA compared to conventional rehabilitation. No significant difference was found in terms of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Conclusions: VR-based rehabilitation improved pain and function but not postural control following TKA compared to conventional rehabilitation. More high-quality RCTs are needed to prove the advantage of VR-based rehabilitation. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, it is necessary to promote this rehabilitation model.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.370
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.370
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1090.035
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it