Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37128555›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2023

"Wearable Sensors to Guide Remote Rehabilitation Following Knee Arthroplasty Surgery".

Samuel W King, Momin Eltayeb, Bernard H van Duren, Sameer Jain, Joel Kerry, Hemant G Pandit, Jeya Palan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Virtual Reality Technology in Otolaryngology Patient Care Management: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Future Prospects.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Samuel W KingLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds, LS7 4SA UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7900-0174
Momin EltayebLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St. James's University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF UK.
Bernard H van DurenLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds, LS7 4SA UK.
Sameer JainLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds, LS7 4SA UK.
Joel KerryLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St. James's University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF UK.
Hemant G PanditLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds, LS7 4SA UK.
Jeya PalanLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds, LS7 4SA UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Total knee arthroplasty requires effective rehabilitation to achieve optimal results, but institutions often rely on unsupervised home exercises due to cost constraints. Wearable sensors have become increasingly popular as a potential method of monitoring patients remotely to ensure efficacy and compliance. This review assesses the current evidence for their use in remotely monitored rehabilitation following knee arthroplasty. Methods: A systematic review of the literature from 1st January 2000 to 17th February 2022 was undertaken. Devices were categorised as joint-specific or physical activity sensors. Studies were classified as those providing remotely supervised rehabilitation as an additional or as an alternative intervention. Results: Remotely supervised rehabilitation using wearable sensors demonstrated similar outcomes when provided as an alternative to standard care in most studies. One group found improved outcomes for knee-specific sensors compared with standard care. There were improved physical activity and healthcare resource use outcomes described in the literature where sensors were used in addition to standard care. Discussion: This review found evidence for the use of wearable sensors in remotely supervised rehabilitation following knee arthroplasty surgery. This included methodological heterogeneity, differing definitions of standard care, and variable follow-up periods. Robust randomised control trial data with a longer follow-up period are needed.

Indexed as

Knee arthroplastyKnee replacementRemote rehabilitationTelerehabilitationWearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID37128555
PMCPMC10147850

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.