Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35286559›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2022

Innovation in Orthopedics: Part 1-Design Thinking.

Andre Leme Fleury, Sara Miriam Goldchmit, Maria Alice Gonzales, Rafaella Rogatto de Farias, Tiago Lazzaretti Fernandes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Andre Leme FleuryProduction Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 1380, Butanta, Sao Paulo, SP, 05508-010, Brazil. andre.fleury@usp.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4937-0339
Sara Miriam GoldchmitDesign Department, School of Architecture and Urbanism, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Maria Alice GonzalesDesign Department, School of Architecture and Urbanism, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Rafaella Rogatto de FariasSports Medicine Division, Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Tiago Lazzaretti FernandesSports Medicine Division, Institute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis narrative will focus on the adoption of design thinking to improve patient-centered care innovation in Orthopedics. RECENT

findingsThe literature reveals a complete set of applications of the design thinking approach in the different stages of the patient experience throughout the health context; however, the papers identified focus on specific parts of the process, and there is no systemic analysis about the different aspects involved in each stage of the complete experience. This review presents a holistic analysis concerning the application of design thinking to the distinct phases of innovation development in orthopedics, from the identification of the specific initial challenges up to the introduction of technology-based artifacts, such as innovations in the musculoskeletal health market. Systematic description of design thinking application to orthopedics, including concepts, methods, tools, and implementation examples in the most relevant phases of the patient experience-clinical treatment, perioperative care, and rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Design thinkingImmersionInnovationPatient experiencePrototyping

Identifiers

PMID35286559
PMCPMC8918897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.