MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412555208 · doi:10.1016/j.arth.2025.07.023

Total Hip Arthroplasty Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Plateau by One Year: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4412555208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cemile Başgül, Hannah Spece, Michael A. Kurtz, Steven M. Kurtz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Arthroplasty · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromWOMACMinimal clinically important differenceMedicinePhysical therapyMeta-analysisHarris Hip ScoreOsteoarthritisPatient-reported outcomeArthroplastyQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To assess total hip arthroplasty (THA) success, various stakeholders utilize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, these metrics remain unstandardized, and data collection time points vary. In this study, we addressed this gap by systematically investigating the THA PROMs plateau. We asked: (1) in the THA literature, when do studies acquire PROMs; and (2) when does a plateau occur? METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies of adult THA patients that reported joint-specific PROMs (Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Numerical Rating Scales Visual Analog Scales and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)). Studies were included if they collected data from before arthroplasty to at least 5 years postoperatively. After data extraction, random-effects meta-analyses evaluated PROM score changes across time points, while Kruskal-Wallis tests assessed differences in the rate of change for the HHS and the OHS. RESULTS: Studies most frequently reported the HHS (n = 14) and the OHS (n = 11). Meta-analyses revealed early score improvements that stabilized over time. The minimal clinically important difference-based comparisons showed plateaus in PROM scores by 6 months in 40.7% of cases and by 1 year in 18.5%. Rate-of-change analyses confirmed that the score change approached zero for most PROMs by 1 year. For HHS, the rate of change from zero to 6 months was significantly greater than later time points, while for OHS, a significant difference was observed between the first 6 months and after 1 year (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMs tended to plateau after 6 months, with additional improvement limited after 1 year. Streamlining collection to this timeframe can reduce costs, improve registry efficiency, and enhance patient adherence without compromising clinical insight.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.038
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ArthroplastySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207