ArticleApplied bionics and biomechanics2015
A Fast Testing Method to Objectively Quantify the Stiffness of Stability Boots.
Article in Applied bionics and biomechanics, 2015. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stability boots can protect the ankle ligaments from overloading after serious injury and facilitate protected movement in order to aid healing of the surrounding soft tissue structures. For comparing different stability shoe designs and prototypes, a reliable and fast testing method (FTM) is required. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of a novel custom-built device. Six different stability boots were tested in a novel device that allowed body weight to be taken into account using a pneumatic actuator. The fixation of the boots was controlled using two air pad pressure sensors. The range of motion (RoM) was then assessed during 5 trials at physiological ankle joint torques during flexion/extension and inversion/eversion. Furthermore the intraclass correlation coefficient ICC was determined to assess the repetitive reliability of the testing approach. The measured ankle angles ranged from 3.4° to 25° and proved to be highly reliable (ICC = 0.99), with standard deviations <9.8%. Comparing single trials to one another resulted in a change of 0.01° joint angle, with a mean error of 0.02°. The FTM demonstrates that it is possible to reliably measure the ankle joint RoM in both the sagittal and frontal planes at controlled torque levels, together with the application of body weight force.
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.