MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210282748 · doi:10.1186/s13018-022-02946-4

Effectiveness of motor imagery for improving functional performance after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4210282748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ran Li, Jubao Du, Kun Yang, Xue Wang, Wenjiao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Municipal Excellent Talents Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisOrthopedic surgeryTotal knee arthroplastyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyArthroplastyKnee surgeryOsteoarthritisSurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to appraise the effects of motor imagery on the functional performance improvement among total knee arthroplasty patients systematically. We hypothesized a relatively greater recovery in the motor imagery group. METHODS: Medline (Ovid), Embase and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to October 1st, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of motor imagery on the functional recovery among total knee arthroplasty patients. Measurements included range of motion, strength intensity, Visual Analogue Scale, Time Up and Go Test, Oxford Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, all of which were evaluated before and after intervention. Mean differences (MD) or standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Six studies with 168 patients were included for the meta-analysis. The SMD of strength intensity was increased (SMD = 0.90, 95% CI = [0.47]-[1.32], P < 0.001). The SMD of Visual Analogue Scale was reduced (SMD = - 0.91; 95% CI = [- 1.29]-[- 0.52], P < 0.001). The SMD of Time Up and Go Test was reduced (SMD = - 0.56, 95% CI = [- 0.94]-[- 0.19], P = 0.003). The MD of Oxford Knee Score was slightly increased (MD = 0.79-point, 95% CI = [- 0.31]-[1.88], P = 0.159). The outcomes of range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were described according to the original data. CONCLUSION: Compared with control therapy, motor imagery in the intervention group achieved an effective treatment for strength enhancement, pain reduction and physical activities improvement. More large-scale, prospective researches are needed in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PROSPERO trial registration number is CRD42021250996.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.031
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and ResearchSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207