Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34960315›Full record

SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Applications of Wearable Movement Sensors for Knee Joint Rehabilitation.

Robert Prill, Marina Walter, Aleksandra Królikowska, Roland Becker

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Design and Validation of a Wearable System for Enhanced Monitoring of Lower Limb Lymphedema.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [The potential of wearable technology in knee arthroplasty].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Robert PrillCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770 Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4916-1206
Marina WalterHasso-Plattner-Institut, University of Potsdam, 14469 Potsdam, Germany.
Aleksandra KrólikowskaErgonomics and Biomedical Monitoring Laboratory, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-367 Wrocław, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6283-5500
Roland BeckerCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, 14770 Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Brandenburg an der Havel · DEHasso Plattner Institute · DEWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical practice, only a few reliable measurement instruments are available for monitoring knee joint rehabilitation. Advances to replace motion capturing with sensor data measurement have been made in the last years. Thus, a systematic review of the literature was performed, focusing on the implementation, diagnostic accuracy, and facilitators and barriers of integrating wearable sensor technology in clinical practices based on a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. For critical appraisal, the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool for reliability and measurement of error was used. PUBMED, Prospero, Cochrane database, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Six studies reporting reliability aspects in using wearable sensor technology at any point after knee surgery in humans were included. All studies reported excellent results with high reliability coefficients, high limits of agreement, or a few detectable errors. They used different or partly inappropriate methods for estimating reliability or missed reporting essential information. Therefore, a moderate risk of bias must be considered. Further quality criterion studies in clinical settings are needed to synthesize the evidence for providing transparent recommendations for the clinical use of wearable movement sensors in knee joint rehabilitation.

Indexed as

MovementWearable Electronic DevicesHumansKnee JointReproducibility of ResultsclinicalIMUmotion captureorthopedicreliabilitywearable movement sensor

Identifiers

PMID34960315
PMCPMC8707010
OpenAlexW4200509373

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.