Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27006935›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical engineering2014

A Review on Technical and Clinical Impact of Microsoft Kinect on Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation.

Hossein Mousavi Hondori, Maryam Khademi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical engineering, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interactive wearable systems for upper body rehabilitation: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Hossein Mousavi HondoriDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92617, USA.
Maryam KhademiSchool of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92617, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper reviews technical and clinical impact of the Microsoft Kinect in physical therapy and rehabilitation. It covers the studies on patients with neurological disorders including stroke, Parkinson's, cerebral palsy, and MS as well as the elderly patients. Search results in Pubmed and Google scholar reveal increasing interest in using Kinect in medical application. Relevant papers are reviewed and divided into three groups: (1) papers which evaluated Kinect's accuracy and reliability, (2) papers which used Kinect for a rehabilitation system and provided clinical evaluation involving patients, and (3) papers which proposed a Kinect-based system for rehabilitation but fell short of providing clinical validation. At last, to serve as technical comparison to help future rehabilitation design other sensors similar to Kinect are reviewed.

Identifiers

PMID27006935
PMCPMC4782741

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.