MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061269835

The PAT randomised clinical trial: total knee arthroplasty versus patellofemoral arthroplasty in patients with severe arthritis of the patellofemoral joint

2020· article· en· W7061269835 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)OsteoarthritisWOMACArthroplastyClinical trialComplication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<br/><strong>Aim: </strong>A pragmatic, single centre, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in a National Health Service teaching hospital to evaluate whether there is a difference in functional knee scores, quality of life outcome assessments and complications at one year post intervention between total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) in patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis.<br/><strong>Patients and Methods: </strong>This parallel, two-arm, superiority trial was powered at 80%, involving 64 patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis. The primary outcome measure was the functional section of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the full 24-item WOMAC, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society Score (AKSS), EQ-5D quality of life score, UCLA Physical Activity Rating Scale and complication rates collected at 3, 6 and 12 months. For longer term follow-up OKS, EQ-5D and self-reported satisfaction score were collected at 24 and 60 months.<br/><strong>Results: </strong>Among 64 patients who were randomized, five patients did not receive the allocated intervention, three withdrew and one declined the intervention. There were no statistically significant differences in the patients’ WOMAC function score at 12 months adjusted mean difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -9.2 to 6.8]; P=0.77. There were no clinically significant differences in the secondary outcomes. Complication rates were comparable (superficial surgical site infections, four in the PFA group vs five in the TKA group). There were no statistically significant differences in the patients’ OKS score at 24 and 60 months or self-reported satisfaction score or pain free years.<br/><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis, this study found no difference in functional outcome at 12 months and long mid-term in the use of PFA compared to TKA. The findings support the use of PFA as an alternative to TKA in the treatment of severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicAdvanced Power Generation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207