Are Psychosocial Factors Predictors of Pain and Functional Outcomes After Knee Arthroplasty at 6 and 12 Months After Surgery? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To perform a systematic review of the literature to investigate the influence of psychosocial factors on pain and functional outcomes after knee arthroplasty from 6 months after surgery. Methods: Studies were included if they were prospective cohort observational studies. The subjects had to be middle aged or aged (mean age: 45 years) and have undergone total or unilateral knee arthroplasty. Studies should have recorded the influence of different psychosocial factors and the surgery outcomes had to be evaluated according to pain and/or function variables regardless of the tools used to measure them. In addition, outcome measures had to be recorded in the medium term (6 months) or the long term (12 months). Two reviewers assessed independently the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases to select observational studies. Results: Twenty-two studies with a total of 7156 patients (5349 females) were included in this review and the mean age was 67.92 years. Twenty-two studies included in this review showed a good average methodological quality (mean ± SD: 7.22 ± 0.92) on the Newcastle—Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Conclusion: The evidence suggests that catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, anxiety, self-efficacy, and mental health are predictors of postoperative functional outcomes at 6 and 12 months after surgery. There is conflicting evidence on whether or not catastrophizing, anxiety, and depression are predictors of postoperative pain at 6 and 12 months after surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".