Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33051693›Full record

ReviewInternational orthopaedics2021

Advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics-a narrative review.

Yuichi Kuroda, Matthew Young, Haitham Shoman, Anuj Punnoose, Alan R Norrish, Vikas Khanduja

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Perceptions and Experiences of a Multimodal Rehabilitation Program for People With Post-Acute COVID-19: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  6. Branding a New Technological Outlook for Future Orthopaedics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Technologies in Home-Based Digital Rehabilitation: Scoping Review.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Yuichi Kuroda *Young Adult Hip Service, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrooke's-Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Box 37, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Matthew Young *Young Adult Hip Service, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrooke's-Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Box 37, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Haitham ShomanYoung Adult Hip Service, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrooke's-Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Box 37, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Anuj PunnooseYoung Adult Hip Service, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrooke's-Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Box 37, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Alan R NorrishDepartment of Academic Orthopaedics, Trauma and Sports Medicine, Queens Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Vikas KhandujaYoung Adult Hip Service, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Addenbrooke's-Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Box 37, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. vk279@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9454-3978

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs the demand for rehabilitation in orthopaedics increases, so too has the development in advanced rehabilitation technology. However, to date, there are no review papers outlining the broad scope of advanced rehabilitation technology used within the orthopaedic population. The aim of this study is to identify, describe and summarise the evidence for efficacy for all advanced rehabilitation technologies applicable to orthopaedic practice.

methodsThe relevant literature describing the use of advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics was identified from appropriate electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) and a narrative review undertaken.

resultsAdvanced rehabilitation technologies were classified into two groups: hospital-based and home-based rehabilitation. In the hospital-based technology group, we describe the use of continuous passive motion and robotic devices (after spinal cord injury) and their effect on improving clinical outcomes. We also report on the use of electromagnetic sensor technology for measuring kinematics of upper and lower limbs during rehabilitation. In the home-based technology group, we describe the use of inertial sensors, smartphones, software applications and commercial game hardware that are relatively inexpensive, user-friendly and widely available. We outline the evidence for videoconferencing for promoting knowledge and motivation for rehabilitation as well as the emerging role of virtual reality.

conclusionsThe use of advanced rehabilitation technology in orthopaedics is promising and evidence for its efficacy is generally supportive.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresOrthopedicsBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansRange of Motion, ArticularTechnologyOrthopaedicsRehabilitationTechnologyTelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID33051693
PMCPMC8338874

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.