Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27306137›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2016

A Combined Experimental and Computational Approach to Subject-Specific Analysis of Knee Joint Laxity.

Michael D Harris, Adam J Cyr, Azhar A Ali, Clare K Fitzpatrick, Paul J Rullkoetter, Lorin P Maletsky, Kevin B Shelburne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Validating subject-specific knee models fromFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Anatomical Tissue Engineering of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Entheses.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Assessment of reporting practices and reproducibility potential of a cohort of published studies in computational knee biomechanics.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. A Parameter Sensitivity Analysis on Multiple Finite Element Knee Joint Models.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    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

7 authors.

Michael D Harris
Adam J Cyr
Azhar A Ali
Clare K Fitzpatrick
Paul J Rullkoetter
Lorin P Maletsky
Kevin B Shelburne

Funding

A Multi-Scale Finite Element Musculoskeletal Modeling Framework Applied to CurrenR01EB015497 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF DENVER (COLORADO SEMINARY) · PI SHELBURNE, KEVIN B · 2012 to 2015
$1.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB015497
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modeling complex knee biomechanics is a continual challenge, which has resulted in many models of varying levels of quality, complexity, and validation. Beyond modeling healthy knees, accurately mimicking pathologic knee mechanics, such as after cruciate rupture or meniscectomy, is difficult. Experimental tests of knee laxity can provide important information about ligament engagement and overall contributions to knee stability for development of subject-specific models to accurately simulate knee motion and loading. Our objective was to provide combined experimental tests and finite-element (FE) models of natural knee laxity that are subject-specific, have one-to-one experiment to model calibration, simulate ligament engagement in agreement with literature, and are adaptable for a variety of biomechanical investigations (e.g., cartilage contact, ligament strain, in vivo kinematics). Calibration involved perturbing ligament stiffness, initial ligament strain, and attachment location until model-predicted kinematics and ligament engagement matched experimental reports. Errors between model-predicted and experimental kinematics averaged <2 deg during varus-valgus (VV) rotations, <6 deg during internal-external (IE) rotations, and <3 mm of translation during anterior-posterior (AP) displacements. Engagement of the individual ligaments agreed with literature descriptions. These results demonstrate the ability of our constraint models to be customized for multiple individuals and simultaneously call attention to the need to verify that ligament engagement is in good general agreement with literature. To facilitate further investigations of subject-specific or population based knee joint biomechanics, data collected during the experimental and modeling phases of this study are available for download by the research community.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalRange of Motion, ArticularWeight-BearingCadaverCartilage, ArticularComputer SimulationElastic ModulusHumansJoint InstabilityKnee JointLigaments, ArticularMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityStress, Mechanical

Identifiers

PMID27306137
PMCPMC4967880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.