ReviewJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2023
Reproducibility in modeling and simulation of the knee: Academic, industry, and regulatory perspectives.
Review in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Finite Element Modeling of the Scaphoid Shift Maneuver: Implications for Scapholunate Ligament injuries.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers' perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Deciphering the "Art" in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee Joint: Assessing Model Calibration Workflows and Outcomes.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stakeholders in the modeling and simulation (M&S) community organized a workshop at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) entitled "Reproducibility in Modeling and Simulation of the Knee: Academic, Industry, and Regulatory Perspectives." The goal was to discuss efforts among these stakeholders to address irreproducibility in M&S focusing on the knee joint. An academic representative from a leading orthopedic hospital in the United States described a multi-institutional, open effort funded by the National Institutes of Health to assess model reproducibility in computational knee biomechanics. A regulatory representative from the United States Food and Drug Administration indicated the necessity of standards for reproducibility to increase utility of M&S in the regulatory setting. An industry representative from a major orthopedic implant company emphasized improving reproducibility by addressing indeterminacy in personalized modeling through sensitivity analyses, thereby enhancing preclinical evaluation of joint replacement technology. Thought leaders in the M&S community stressed the importance of data sharing to minimize duplication of efforts. A survey comprised 103 attendees revealed strong support for the workshop and for increasing emphasis on computational modeling at future ORS meetings. Nearly all survey respondents (97%) considered reproducibility to be an important issue. Almost half of respondents (45%) tried and failed to reproduce the work of others. Two-thirds of respondents (67%) declared that individual laboratories are most responsible for ensuring reproducible research whereas 44% thought that journals are most responsible. Thought leaders and survey respondents emphasized that computational models must be reproducible and credible to advance knee M&S.
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.