Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26346873›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

A knee monitoring device and the preferences of patients living with osteoarthritis: a qualitative study.

Enrica Papi, Athina Belsi, Alison H McGregor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Assessing the application of human-centered design to translational research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Prevention of Injury-Induced Osteoarthritis in Rodent Temporomandibular Joint by Targeting Chondrocyte CaSR.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Enrica PapiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Athina BelsiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, London, UK.
Alison H McGregorDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 088844/Z/09/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify perspective of patients with osteoarthritis, in particular design requirements and mode of use, of wearable technology to support the rehabilitation pathway. This study is part of a user-centred design approach adopted to develop a rehabilitation tool for patients with osteoarthritis.

designQualitative study using a focus group approach; data management via a thematic analysis of patients' responses.

participants21 patients with osteoarthritis (age range 45-65 years) participated in 1 of the 4 focus groups. Recruitment continued until data saturation.

settingThe study was conducted in a university setting.

resultsMain determinants of user acceptance of a wearable technology were appearance and comfort during use. Patients were supportive of the use of wearable technologies during rehabilitation and could recognise their benefit as monitors for their progress, incentives to adhere to exercise, and tools for more informed interaction with clinicians.

conclusionsThis paper should encourage adoption and development of wearable technology to support rehabilitation of patients with osteoarthritis. It is pivotal that technological development takes into account patients' views in that it should be small, light, discrete, not 'appear medical' or challenge the identity of the user. Derived data should be available to patients and clinicians. Furthermore, wearable technologies should be developed to operate in two modes: for exercise guidance and assessment only, and for unobtrusive everyday monitoring. The information obtained from this study should guide the design of new technologies and support their use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchAgedEquipment DesignFemaleHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicOsteoarthritis, KneePhysical Therapy ModalitiesRange of Motion, ArticularTelemetryFocus groupFunctional monitoringOsteoarthiritsRehabilitationwearable system

Identifiers

PMID26346873
PMCPMC4563249

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.