Effects of Balance and Proprioceptive Training on Rehabilitation After Total Knee and Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of balance or proprioceptive training and conventional training among older adults undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from study inception to March 8, 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of balance or proprioceptive training with conventional training among older adults undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty. The two methods of training were compared in terms of pain, function, and balance. We adopted a random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird) to pool data. RESULTS: Nineteen clinical trials with 579 individuals in the balance or proprioceptive training group and 556 individuals in the conventional training group were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between balance training and conventional training in terms of 10-min walk, average velocity, functional reach, single-leg standing, strength, timed up and go test, knee extension, knee flexion, Berg scale score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living subscale score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score quality of life score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, WOMAC physical function score, and WOMAC stiffness score. Compared with conventional training, balancing training only decreased the WOMAC total score (standardized mean difference: -0.60, 95% confidence interval [-0.95, -0.25], I2 = 39.15%) and path length (weighted mean difference: -20.84 mm, 95% confidence interval [-32.85, -8.83], I2 = 0.00%). CONCLUSION: Balance training is not superior to conventional training for the rehabilitation of older adults undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. IMPLICATIONS: Balance training should not be necessarily preferred over conventional training for the rehabilitation of patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".