MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405898157 · doi:10.71000/ijhr87

COMPARISON OF TELEREHABILITATION VS. CLINICAL SETUP REHABILITATION IN TKR PATIENTS

2024· article· en· W4405898157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Junaid Ijaz Gondal, Irfan Ahmed, Iqra Ikram, M. Jamil, Adnan Hashim

Bibliographic record

VenueInsights-Journal of Health and Rehabilitation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelerehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyWOMACOsteoarthritisRehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialActivities of daily livingKnee replacementPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArthroplastyTelemedicineHealth careSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a common condition among older adults, often leading to significant pain and disability. Total knee replacement (TKR) is frequently recommended for severe cases to alleviate symptoms and restore function. However, effective post-operative rehabilitation is crucial to maximize recovery outcomes and improve quality of life. Telerehabilitation is emerging as an accessible alternative to conventional physiotherapy, potentially enhancing patient adherence and functional outcomes while minimizing the need for in-person visits. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared to conventional physiotherapy in improving knee function and patient outcomes following TKR. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at Horizon Hospital in Lahore, including 36 participants aged over 65 years, all of whom had undergone TKR. Participants were randomly assigned to either Group A (telerehabilitation) or Group B (conventional clinical therapy), with 18 individuals in each group. Data collection tools included the Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living (KOS-ADLS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) surveys, supplemented by electronic goniometer measurements of knee flexion and extension. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at the fourth week to compare outcomes statistically between the two groups. Results: In the fourth week, Group A (telerehabilitation) showed significantly better outcomes in knee function and pain management compared to Group B (conventional therapy). KOOS-ADL scores improved significantly in Group A (p = 0.001) compared to Group B. WOMAC scores also demonstrated significant improvement in Group A (p = 0.000). Furthermore, knee flexion increased substantially for Group A, reaching 121.1° (p = 0.031), and knee extension deficit reduced to 2.6° (p = 0.028). Conclusion: Telerehabilitation is an effective post-operative intervention for TKR, enhancing knee function, reducing pain, and improving overall patient satisfaction. This approach provides a practical and accessible solution, particularly beneficial for older adults with limited mobility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsights-Journal of Health and RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207