ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
A Biomechanical Comparison Shows No Difference Between Two Knee Braces used for Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of a Novel Dynamic Hamstring Brace on Muscle and Athletic Performance Tests among Young Basketball Players.Journal of human kinetics · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the ability of 2 commonly used knee braces to control knee valgus motion and subsequent strain on the medial collateral ligament (MCL) in a laboratory-controlled environment.
methodsTwenty healthy individuals (6 male, 14 female; mean age, 23 ± 3 years) with no history of knee injury or brace use performed a jump landing task while wearing either no brace or 1 of 2 braces: the Playmaker and Total Range of Motion . Three-dimensional joint kinematics and kinetics were measured in our biomechanics laboratory.
resultsSignificantly less knee dynamic valgus angulation was noted when using either brace (-0.51° ± 3.9° and -1.3° ± 3.2°) compared no brace (4.8° ± 3.0°). Dynamic valgus angulation did not differ significantly between the 2 braces tested, which were both not statistically different from baseline alignment. There were significant differences seen in peak knee flexion angle between each brace (77.9° ± 8.8°and 83.1° ± 8.4°), as well as between both braces and no brace (90.6° ± 11.1°). There was no significant difference in knee frontal plane moment or peak vertical ground reaction force loading among all 3 testing conditions.
conclusionsCompared to no brace, both braces allowed significantly less dynamic valgus angulation of the knee under physiological vertical loads but were not significantly different from one another. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knee braces are commonly used to protect the MCL when placed under physiological loads. It is important to know which braces effectively reduce valgus stress to provide the best outcomes.
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.