Exercise interventions for postural stability in people after total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesize the evidence for: (1) outcome measures and components of postural stability evaluated in people after total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA), and (2) the effectiveness of exercise interventions delivered within the first three months post-THA for OA on short-term and long-term postural stability. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL (inception to December 2024) were searched for randomized trials examining exercise interventions within three months post-THA for postural stability. Outcome measures and components of postural stability were identified using the Systems Framework for Postural Stability. Exercise intervention details were extracted using a modified TIDieR checklist, and trial quality was assessed with the PEDro scale. RESULTS: = 9). Adding balance-challenging exercises to standard rehabilitation improved short-term postural stability more than standard rehabilitation alone. Long-term effects remain unclear. CONCLUSION: Limited number of outcome measures were used, assessing a few components of postural stability. Early postoperative exercise interventions improve postural stability, but greater clarity is needed to identify optimal assessments and exercise interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".