Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36555971›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Efficacy of Visual Feedback Training for Motor Recovery in Post-Operative Subjects with Knee Replacement: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Simone Carozzo, Martina Vatrano, Francesco Coschignano, Riccardo Battaglia, Rocco Salvatore Calabrò, Loris Pignolo, Marianna Contrada, Paolo Tonin, Antonio Cerasa, Andrea Demeco

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Simone CarozzoS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4536-9832
Martina VatranoS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4423-440X
Francesco CoschignanoS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.
Riccardo BattagliaS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.
Rocco Salvatore CalabròIRCCS Centro Neurolesi "Bonino Pulejo", 98124 Messina, Italy.
Loris PignoloS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9706-0779
Marianna ContradaS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.
Paolo ToninS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4867-1378
Antonio CerasaS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.
Andrea DemecoS'Anna Institute, 88900 Crotone, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5419-4275
Istituto S.Anna Crotone · ITCentro Neurolesi Bonino Pulejo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the effects of visual feedback training on motor recovery in postoperative patients with a total knee replacement (TKR). The performance of 40 first-ever TKR patients (27 females; mean age: 70.5 (67.2−74.0) years) was evaluated in a single center, single-blind, randomized controlled study. The patients were randomly and equally distributed into two demographically/clinically matched groups undergoing experimental or traditional treatments. All patients have been treated in a 1 h session, 2/day for 5 days a week, for six consecutive weeks. The first group (“control”) underwent conventional physical therapy, whereas the experimental group received advanced knee training with visual feedback using the TecnoBody® device (Walker View 3.0 SCX, Dalmine (BG), Italy). The clinical scales and kinematic parameters coming from the gait analysis were evaluated to demonstrate the dynamic balance function in a standing position before and after each treatment. After the treatment, both experimental and control groups improved significantly and similarly, as measured by the clinical scales (Numeric Rating Scale for Pain and Barthel index). A significant boosting of the motor performance was detected in the experimental group with respect to the control group in the terms of symmetry index 84 (80.8−85.4) vs. 87.15 (84−92.8) p = 0.001 *; single stance support 34.9 (34.1−36.5) vs. 37.8 (36.6−38.9); p < 0.001; and obliquity parameters 58.65 (51.3−70.3) vs. 73 (62.3−82.1); p < 0.001. Applying visual feedback training in addition to traditional rehabilitation strategies improves the knee function and motor control in postoperative TKR patients.

Indexed as

kinematic parametersmotor recoverytotal knee replacementvisual feedback

Identifiers

PMID36555971
PMCPMC9783629
OpenAlexW4312127287

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.