ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
A novel prophylactic Chinese parachute ankle brace.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A prophylactic lumbosacral brace and the biomechanics of parachute landing.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Effect of Different Protection on Lateral Ankle during Landing: An Instantaneous Impact Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective is to compare the effects of a self-designed and self-manufactured novel prophylactic ankle brace [Chinese parachute ankle brace (CPAB)] and two ordinary ankle braces on the ankle joint during a half-squat parachute landing (HSPL) via biomechanical assessment.
methodsTwenty elite paratroopers were in four different conditions: no brace, elastic brace, semi-rigid brace, and CPAB. Each participant was instructed to jump off a platform with three different heights, 40, 80, and 120 cm, and land on the force plate in a half-squat posture. The vertical ground reaction forces (vGRFs), joint angles, moments, powers, and works were calculated. After the experiment, every participant completed the questionnaires designed for this study.
resultsIncreasing the dropping height increased all of the parameters significantly (P<0.01), except for time to peak vGRF (T-PvGRF). Applying three braces can all slightly increase vGRF (P=0.237) and reduce T-PvGRF by 6-10 ms, as well as decrease the joint angles, velocities, and moments on the sagittal and coronal planes. Wearing CPAB and a semi-rigid brace more efficiently restricted dorsiflexion and inversion (P<0.05), and they both significantly reduced ankle work (t=5.107, P<0.01; t=3.331, P<0.01) and peak power (t=7.237, P<0.01; t=6.711, P<0.01) at 120 cm. The total scores from low-to-high were semi-rigid brace (19.20±2.99), elastic brace (21.91±3.25), and CPAB (23.37±3.08).
conclusionsThe CPAB was more effective at restricting ankle joint motion on the coronal and sagittal planes than the other two prophylactic ankle braces. Therefore, the CPAB had the advantages of a novel appearance, high efficiency, and superior comfort, providing a reliable choice for parachute jumping and training in China.
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.