Effectiveness of motor imagery for improving functional performance after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.035 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".