ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2014
Quantitative measurement of hip protector use and compliance.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2014. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hip protectors are often prescribed to the elderly who are at risk of falling, with the goal of preventing hip fractures. However, determining the effectiveness of hip protectors has been hampered by unreliable compliance data. This study reports a reliable objective method of measuring compliance and the developed method could be used in any climate, regardless of temperature. Custom compliance monitors were built and embedded inside hip protectors. An algorithm was developed to utilize both temperature and acceleration to determine compliance. Seven young volunteers (age 24.6 ± 4.2 years old) wore the protectors for a total of 667 h while closely recording their compliance. One female (77 years old) who had hip fracture history wore the compliance monitors for 91.6 % of the time during a 1-week stay in a hospital. From the volunteers' trial, using temperature alone overpredicted compliance by 1.2 % and using acceleration alone overpredicted by 5.4 %, but using a combination of the two methods plus a correction factor only underestimated by 0.6 %. From the elderly data, the average compliance recorded from the temperature, acceleration, and combined methods with correction was 94.6, 88.9, and 90.2, respectively. The high accuracy of temperature sensors in this study will not be attainable in hot climates where most of the worldwide increase in hip fractures is occurring. The developed monitor with the algorithm provided high accuracy in determining compliance and was able to determine both the longitudinal and cross-sectional compliance at any time.
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.