Feasibility of a preoperative strengthening exercise program on postoperative function in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are conflicting results on the effect of preoperative exercise programs on long-term function and little evidence on short-term function. The aim is to assess the feasibility of a preoperative strengthening exercise program in patients undergoing hip or knee joint arthroplasty in terms of trial design, recruitment, and follow-up rates. METHODS: A randomized controlled feasibility study with patients undergoing hip or knee joint arthroplasty. Patients were randomized to a preoperative strengthening exercise program or standard of care. Feasibility outcome measures were recruitment rate (≥ 50%) and loss to follow-up (≤ 15%). RESULTS: Of the 129 eligible participants, 63 participants consented to participate in the study (49%), and 27 were successfully randomized prior to surgery (43%). All 27 participants completed the baseline assessment. Of these, 6 (22%) had surgery during the exercise period. Of the remaining 21 participants, 20 (95%) completed the pre-surgery assessment. The study was terminated before five participants could be eligible for the 6-month assessment. Sixteen (76%) participants completed the 6-week post-surgery assessment. Twelve participants completed the 6-month assessment (75%). CONCLUSION: Given the recruitment rate, randomization barriers, and study participant loss to follow-up, the study was discontinued since it was not considered feasible in this current form at our clinical site despite modifications made to the protocol. Future investigations into a modified intervention via telerehabilitation should be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03483519 . Retrospectively registered in March 2018.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".