Clinical practice recommendations for prehabilitation and post‐operative rehabilitation for arthroplasty: A scoping review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rising need for arthroplasty (joint replacement) has resulted in a significant increase in wait-times. Longer surgical wait-times may further exacerbate functional decline in adults with osteoarthritis as well as delay postoperative functional recovery. This review aims to better inform rehabilitation care provision before (prehabilitation) and after (post-rehabilitation) hip or knee arthroplasty based on recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: This scoping review used a three-stage process to screen and extract articles, which resulted in 123 articles reviewed for analysis. Included CPGs were in the English language and focussed on rehabilitation interventions or practices involving adult patients preparing for or recuperating from hip and knee arthroplasty (published 2009-2020). RESULTS: Patient assessments, use of assistive devices, as well as self-management and education programs were recommended before and after arthroplasty. Physiotherapy was recommended to support post-operative rehabilitation. Conversely, there was limited evidence supporting recommendations for or against physiotherapy during the prehabilitation phase of the arthroplasty care journey. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review highlight the current gap in high-quality evidence supporting hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation CPGs before and after surgery. Findings warrant additional research to ensure patients are best prepared for surgery and supported for optimal recovery.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it