Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31783762›Full record

Trial reportJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2019

A home visit program versus a non-home visit program in total knee replacement patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Bura Sindhupakorn, Piya-On Numpaisal, Suwittaya Thienpratharn, Darawan Jomkoh

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bura SindhupakornSchool of orthopedic, Institute of medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Ave, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand. bura@sut.ac.th.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6070-7441
Piya-On NumpaisalSchool of orthopedic, Institute of medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Ave, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand.
Suwittaya ThienpratharnSchool of orthopedic, Institute of medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Ave, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand.
Darawan JomkohSchool of orthopedic, Institute of medicine, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Ave, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand.
Suranaree University of Technology · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goals in total knee replacement (TKR) are pain relief, restore functions, and improve quality of life. Surgical outcomes were not related to patients' satisfaction. Low 1-year WOMAC especially in the first 6 weeks and painful TKR related to patient dissatisfied. To improve satisfaction, we created the home visit program (TKR-H) after hospital discharge. INHOMESSS was the rationale for home visit activities.

methodsWe recruited 52 TKRs. Four TKRs were excluded. We used simple randomization for 24 patients as a home visit (TKR-H) and 24 patients as a non-home visit (TKR). Patients were evaluated by general demographics, pain intensity scores (VAS), range of motion (ROM), WOMAC, knee scores, and functional scores as a primary objective. A duration for gait aid independent and patient's satisfaction score as secondary objective. The study was 6 weeks after surgery.

resultsTKR-H and TKR had significant differences in the mean of WOMAC score (88.29 ± 10.66 vs. 68.00 ± 12.47, respectively, P <  0.001), pain score (VAS) (6.25 ± 10.13 vs. 35.67 ± 22.05, respectively, P <  0.001), knee score (81.67 ± 10.08 vs. 68.38 ± 6.45, respectively, P <  0.001), functional score (77.83 ± 4.22 vs. 73.70 ± 7.48, respectively, P = 0.037), and range of motion (107.71 ± 8.47 vs. 98.17 ± 9.57, respectively, P = 0.001). The patient's satisfaction score in TKR-H group (4.71 ± 0.46) was significantly higher than the TKR group (4.13 ± 0.45) (P <  0.001) and time to gait aid independent (2.75 ± 0.99 vs. 3.71 ± 1.23, respectively, P = 0.005).

conclusionOur TKR-H showed better clinical outcomes and satisfaction than non-home visit. The rationale in TKR-H improves satisfaction after total knee replacement.

trial registrationTCTR20190514001.

Indexed as

AgedArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleHouse CallsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionHome visit programNon-home visit programTotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID31783762
PMCPMC6884913
OpenAlexW2991163581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.