Outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery from private and public healthcare services in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgery (ACLR) between individuals using private and public healthcare. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of participants, 9-36 months post-ACLR using public or private healthcare services. Multivariable linear regression assessed the association between healthcare service used (private versus public) with self-reported outcomes (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales of pain, symptoms, sport/recreation, knee-related quality of life (QoL); 0-100 scale), adjusting for potential confounders. Results: A total of 314 participants were included (median age 29 years, 35 % female). One hundred and thirty-nine (44 %) underwent ACLR using private healthcare. Individuals using private healthcare for ACLR reported better post-ACLR knee-related QoL (mean difference 5.1; 95%CI 0.6 to 9.7) than individuals using public healthcare, when adjusted for available confounders. No other KOOS subscale scores (pain, symptoms, sport/recreation) differed between healthcare groups in our adjusted analysis. Conclusions: Australian young adults who underwent ACLR using private healthcare (compared to public healthcare) services reported better knee-related QoL post-operatively in this cross-sectional cohort. Sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors contributed little to the differences observed. Future research should consider potential disparities in outcomes between participants using differing healthcare services both clinically and when recruiting participants into research studies evaluating outcomes post-ACLR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".