ReviewCureus2025
Comparing Intensive and Conventional Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Physical Outcomes After Total Knee Replacement.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint disease causing cartilage damage, bone erosion, and chronic pain, often leading to disability. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is frequently performed to relieve OA symptoms. Conventional therapy training (CTT) is the standard intervention, whether preoperative or postoperative. We assume that intensive therapy training (ITT) may have higher effects in some aspects. The study aims to evaluate the impact of postoperative CTT versus ITT on various physical measures and questionnaires over different follow-up periods. Our systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, searching until June 2024. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK), with mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was assessed via P-value and I
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.