Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31191937›Full record

ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering

A review of wearable motion tracking systems used in rehabilitation following hip and knee replacement.

Shayan Bahadori, Tikki Immins, Thomas W Wainwright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Artificial intelligence in arthroplasty.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Pathway redesign: putting patients ahead of professionals.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors.

Shayan BahadoriOrthopaedic Research Institute, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Tikki ImminsOrthopaedic Research Institute, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Thomas W WainwrightOrthopaedic Research Institute, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical teams are under increasing pressure to facilitate early hospital discharge for total hip replacement and total knee replacement patients following surgery. A wide variety of wearable devices are being marketed to assist with rehabilitation following surgery. A review of wearable devices was undertaken to assess the evidence supporting their efficacy in assisting rehabilitation following total hip replacement and total knee replacement. A search was conducted using the electronic databases including Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycARTICLES, and PubMed of studies from January 2000 to October 2017. Five studies met the eligibility criteria, and all used an accelerometer and a gyroscope for their technology. A review of the studies found very little evidence to support the efficacy of the technology, although they show that the use of the technology is feasible. Future work should establish which wearable technology is most valuable to patients, which ones improve patient outcomes, and the most economical model for deploying the technology.

Indexed as

rehabilitationtotal hip replacementTotal knee replacementwearables

Identifiers

PMID31191937
PMCPMC6453074

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.