ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021
A new quantitative evaluation system for distal radioulnar joint instability using a three-dimensional electromagnetic sensor.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Normal Range and Influencing Factors of Distal Radioulnar Joint Translation: A Descriptive Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Ulnar-Sided Wrist Pain: Systematic Clinical Approach and Principles of Treatment.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2025Review
- Measurement of Shoulder Abduction Angle with Posture Estimation Artificial Intelligence Model.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accurate assessment of distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) instability is still challenging as there is no established objective evaluation method. This study aimed to develop a noninvasive measurement method using a three-dimensional electromagnetic sensor system (EMS) to quantitatively assess and characterize the normal DRUJ movement in healthy volunteers.
methodsThe DRUJ movement was mimicked using both a block model and saw bone. Movement of the models was measured by EMS, and the accuracy and reproducibility of the measurements were assessed. In vivo measurement was performed in a sitting position with the elbow flexed and the forearm pronated. One sensor each was attached to the distal radial shaft and the ulnar head. The examiners fixed the distal radius and the carpal bones, moved the ulnar head from the dorsal to the volar side and measured the dorsovolar translation. The volar translation was measured by EMS and ultrasonography, and the correlation coefficient was calculated. The dorsovolar translation was evaluated in 14 healthy volunteers (7 men and 7 women) by three hand surgeons. The intraclass and inter-rater correlation coefficients (ICCs), the differences between the dominant and non-dominant sides and between men and women were assessed.
resultsThe accuracy and reproducibility assessment results of the EMS showed high accuracy and reproducibility. In the comparison between EMS and ultrasonography, the correlation coefficient was 0.920 (p = 0.16 × 10
conclusionsA new measurement method using EMS could evaluate DRUJ movement with high accuracy, reproducibility, and intra- and inter-rater reliability. In healthy volunteers, the dorsovolar ulnar head translation was 6.00 mm. The difference between the dominant and non-dominant sides was < 1.0 mm with no significant difference. EMS provided an objective, non-invasive, real-time assessment of dynamic changes in the DRUJ. These findings could be useful in the treatment of patients with DRUJ instability.
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.