ArticleJournal of biomechanics2019
Development and validation of a kinematically-driven discrete element model of the patellofemoral joint.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The non-invasive evaluation technique of patellofemoral joint stress: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Pooled it
- Validation and evaluation of subject-specific finite element models of the pediatric knee.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Combining advanced computational and imaging techniques as a quantitative tool to estimate patellofemoral joint stress during downhill gait: A feasibility study.Gait & posture · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantifying the complex loads at the patellofemoral joint (PFJ) is vital to understanding the development of PFJ pain and osteoarthritis. Discrete element analysis (DEA) is a computationally efficient method to estimate cartilage contact stresses with potential application at the PFJ to better understand PFJ mechanics. The current study validated a DEA modeling framework driven by PFJ kinematics to predict experimentally-measured PFJ contact stress distributions. Two cadaveric knee specimens underwent quadriceps muscle [215 N] and joint compression [350 N] forces at ten discrete knee positions representing PFJ positions during early gait while measured PFJ kinematics were used to drive specimen-specific DEA models. DEA-computed contact stress and area were compared to experimentally-measured data. There was good agreement between computed and measured mean and peak stress across the specimens and positions (r = 0.63-0.85). DEA-computed mean stress was within an average of 12% (range: 1-47%) of the experimentally-measured mean stress while DEA-computed peak stress was within an average of 22% (range: 1-40%). Stress magnitudes were within the ranges measured (0.17-1.26 MPa computationally vs 0.12-1.13 MPa experimentally). DEA-computed areas overestimated measured areas (average error = 60%; range: 4-117%) with magnitudes ranging from 139 to 307 mm
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.