Effect of Depression Interventions in Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty Without a Formal Diagnosis of Depression: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Depression is a notable contributor to suboptimal outcomes after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). We conducted a systematic review of comparative studies to review the available evidence of interventions that affected depression scores and/or outcomes for patients undergoing TJA. METHODS: EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus were reviewed systematically from inception until November 15, 2022. Studies that were relevant for this review included comparative studies between patients who received an intervention within 3 months before or after their primary total hip or knee arthroplasty procedure. The interventions included a wide range of modalities, which were grouped into psychotherapy, enhanced perioperative support, and pharmacotherapy. Other interventions included physiotherapy techniques with a psychological focus, art/music-based therapy, occupational therapy support, and educational interventions. Meta-analysis was conducted for psychotherapy and enhanced support. RESULTS: The final systematic review consisted of 28 relevant studies, most of which were randomized controlled trials. A total of 3,702 patients, with a mean age of 66 years, were considered, of whom 59% were female. Most of the studies reported a notable reduction in depressive symptoms and/or scores based on the interventions being analyzed. At 3 months postoperatively, psychotherapy and enhanced support both resulted in markedly better depression and function scores compared with control subjects, with psychotherapy additionally improving pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a wide range of interventions aimed at psychological optimization of patients undergoing TJA can improve depressive symptoms, pain, and function, even in the absence of a formal diagnosis of depression. Specifically, cognitive-based psychotherapy and enhanced perioperative support had the best evidence. Routine pharmacotherapy plays a limited role, if any, in the care of TJA. Additional efforts to develop pragmatic, evidence-based, and reproducible interventions are warranted to continue to optimize outcomes in TJA patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".