MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415854600 · doi:10.1186/s13018-025-06393-9

Smart device–assisted telerehabilitation versus conventional rehabilitation after total nee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415854600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shaoyang Zhai, Rui Wu, Ge Du, Xueran Chen, Yafei Liu, Jie Zhao, Xin Yuan, Wei‐Chen Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTelerehabilitationRehabilitationModalitiesPersonalizationTelemedicineOrthoticsOrthopedic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains the definitive treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). Despite its success, post-operative rehabilitation continues to be challenged by limited access to care, inconsistent patient compliance, and a lack of standardized protocols. In response, smart device-assisted telerehabilitation has gained attention for its capacity to deliver real-time monitoring and individualized feedback. However, its comparative effectiveness relative to traditional rehabilitation approaches remains inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing smart device-assisted telerehabilitation to conventional rehabilitation following TKA. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Key outcomes assessed were pain (Visual Analog Scale (VAS)), functional recovery (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)), and range of motion (ROM) (knee flexion and extension angles). Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0, with heterogeneity evaluated via the I 2 statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also conducted. A total of 22 RCTs encompassing 2,181 participants were included. Overall, there were no significant differences between smart and conventional rehabilitation regarding VAS (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI: − 0.24 to 0.28) and WOMAC scores (SMD = − 0.27, 95% CI: − 0.60 to 0.06). Subgroup analyses revealed that augmented reality (AR) interventions were associated with greater pain reduction (VAS: SMD = − 1.12, 95% CI: − 1.98 to − 0.25), and virtual reality (VR) interventions led to significant functional improvement (WOMAC: SMD = − 0.47, 95% CI: − 0.82 to − 0.13). Furthermore, smart rehabilitation yielded superior outcomes in knee extension angle (SMD = − 0.15, 95% CI: − 0.28 to − 0.02). Sensitivity and publication bias analyses confirmed the stability of the results. Smart device-assisted telerehabilitation is comparable to conventional rehabilitation in overall outcomes after TKA. However, AR and VR technologies demonstrate added value in specific domains of recovery, suggesting that future rehabilitation programs should consider integrating these modalities to enhance effectiveness and personalization of care.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.030
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 venueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and ResearchSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207