ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2022
A Musculoskeletal Model for Estimating Hip Contact Pressure During Walking.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multibody dynamics-based musculoskeletal modeling for gait analysis: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cartilage contact pressures are major factors in osteoarthritis etiology and are commonly estimated using finite element analysis (FEA). FEA models often include subject-specific joint geometry, but lack subject-specific joint kinematics and muscle forces. Musculoskeletal models use subject-specific kinematics and muscle forces but often lack methods for estimating cartilage contact pressures. Our objective was to adapt an elastic foundation (EF) contact model within OpenSim software to predict hip cartilage contact pressures and compare results to validated FEA models. EF and FEA models were built for five subjects. In the EF models, kinematics and muscle forces were applied and pressure was calculated as a function of cartilage overlap depth. Cartilage material properties were perturbed to find the best match to pressures from FEA. EF models with elastic modulus = 15 MPa and Poisson's ratio = 0.475 yielded results most comparable to FEA, with peak pressure differences of 4.34 ± 1.98 MPa (% difference = 39.96 ± 24.64) and contact area differences of 3.73 ± 2.92% (% difference = 13.4 ± 11.3). Peak pressure location matched between FEA and EF for 3 of 5 subjects, thus we do not recommend this model if the location of peak contact pressure is critically important to the research question. Contact area magnitudes and patterns matched reasonably between FEA and EF, suggesting that this model may be useful for questions related to those variables, especially if researchers desire inclusion of subject-specific geometry, kinematics, muscle forces, and dynamic motion in a computationally efficient framework.
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.