Trial reportNeurosurgery2019
Quantifying Real-World Upper-Limb Activity Via Patient-Initiated Movement After Nerve Reconstruction for Upper Brachial Plexus Injury.
Trial report in Neurosurgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Wearable Sensors to Measure Improvements in Real World Upper Extremity Activity After Brachial Plexus Reconstruction.The Journal of hand surgery · 2026Article
- Curcumin Promotes the Recovery of Motor Function After Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury in Rats.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Microscopy Image Dataset for Deep Learning-Based Quantitative Assessment of Pulmonary Vascular Changes.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Review
- Assessment of variability in motor grading and patient-reported outcome reporting: a multi-specialty, multi-national survey.Acta neurochirurgica · 2021Article
- The effect of a high-quality nursing model employing low-frequency pulse electrical stimulation combined with early systemic functional exercises on the function of the affected limb in brachial plexus injury patients.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA critical concept in brachial plexus reconstruction is the accurate assessment of functional outcomes. The current standard for motor outcome assessment is clinician-elicited, outpatient clinic-based, serial evaluation of range of motion and muscle power. However, discrepancies exist between such clinical measurements and actual patient-initiated use. We employed emerging technology in the form of accelerometry-based motion detectors to quantify real-world arm use after brachial plexus surgery.
objectiveTo evaluate (1) the ability of accelerometry-based motion detectors to assess functional outcome and (2) the real-world arm use of patients after nerve transfer for brachial plexus injury, through a pilot study.
methodsFive male patients who underwent nerve transfer after brachial plexus injury wore bilateral motion detectors for 7 d. The patients also underwent range-of-motion evaluation and completed multiple patient-reported outcome surveys.
resultsThe average age of the recruits was 41 yr (±17 yr), and the average time from operation was 2 yr (±1 yr). The VT (time of use ratio) for the affected side compared to the unaffected side was 0.73 (±0.27), and the VM (magnitude ratio) was 0.63 (±0.59). VT strongly and positively correlated with shoulder flexion and shoulder abduction: 0.97 (P = .008) and 0.99 (P = .002), respectively.
conclusionAccelerometry-based activity monitors can successfully assess real-world functional outcomes after brachial plexus reconstruction. This pilot study demonstrates that patients after nerve transfer are utilizing their affected limbs significantly in daily activities and that recovery of shoulder function is critical.
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.