MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409023831 · doi:10.1186/s13018-025-05752-w

Prevalence and influencing factors of kinesiophobia after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409023831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xingbin Du, Jian Xue, Jianda Kong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryMeta-analysisArthroplastyPhysical therapyTotal knee arthroplastyMEDLINESystematic reviewSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis is a common degenerative disease in the elderly, and total knee arthroplasty is an effective treatment for end-stage knee joint diseases. However, kinesiophobia after surgery can impede patients' rehabilitation and affect the recovery of knee joint function. There are differences in the research on its related influencing factors. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis examined the prevalence and risk factors of kinesiophobia after TKA. METHODS: Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Embase, Web of Science on the prevalence and risk factors of kinesiophobia after TKA was searched in science, MEDLINE and other databases. Duplicate literature, low quality literature, literature with inconsistent observation indicators, and literature without full text were excluded. Two independent researchers used Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of the included literature. After data extraction, Meta-analysis was performed using Stata17.0. RESULTS: A total of 11 articles involving 4039 cases were included in this meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of kinesiophobia after TKA. The overall prevalence was found to be 35% (95% CI: 27-44%). Subgroup analyses revealed varying prevalence rates based on age, education, income, and residence, with the highest prevalence observed in individuals under 65 years and those with lower levels of education and income. Key factors influencing the prevalence of kinesiophobia included pain (OR = 2.313, 95% CI: 1.556-3.07), low social support (OR = 1.681, 95% CI: 1.000-2.361), and negative coping strategies (OR = 1.344, 95% CI: 1.165-1.523). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of kinesiophobia after TKA is high. There are differences in the prevalence of kinesiophobia among people with different places of residence, different education levels, and different monthly incomes. At the same time, it is affected by many factors such as postoperative pain, low social support, low self-efficacy, negative coping, old age, and low education level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and ResearchSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207