ArticlePloS one2023
Micro-doppler radar to evaluate risk for musculoskeletal injury: Protocol for a case-control study with gold standard comparison.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBeyond causing significant morbidity and cost, musculoskeletal injuries (MSKI) are among the most common reasons for primary care visits. A validated injury risk assessment tool for MSKI is conspicuously absent from current care. While motion capture (MC) systems are the current gold standard for assessing human motion, their disadvantages include large size, non-portability, high cost, and limited spatial resolution. As an alternative we introduce the Micro Doppler Radar (MDR); in contrast with MC, it is small, portable, inexpensive, and has superior spatial resolution capabilities. While Phase 1 testing has confirmed that MDR can identify individuals at high risk for MSKI, Phase 2 testing is still needed. Our aims are to 1) Use MDR technology and MC to identify individuals at high-risk for MSKI 2) Evaluate whether MDR has diagnostic accuracy superior to MC 3) Develop MDR algorithms that enhance accuracy and enable automation. METHODS AND
findingsA case control study will compare the movement patterns of 125 ACL reconstruction patients to 125 healthy controls. This study was reviewed and approved by the Pennsylvania State University Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) on May 18, 2022, and the IRB approval number is STUDY00020118. The ACL group is used as a model for a "high risk" population as up to 24% will have a repeat surgery within 2 years. An 8-camera Motion Analysis MC system with Cortex 8 software to collect MC data. Components for the radar technology will be purchased, assembled, and packaged. A micro-doppler signature projection algorithm will determine correct classification of ACL versus healthy control. Our previously tested algorithm for processing the MDR data will be used to identify the two groups. Discrimination, sensitivity and specificity will be calculated to compare the accuracy of MDR to MC in identifying the two groups.
conclusionsWe describe the rationale and methodology of a case-control study using novel MDR technology to detect individuals at high-risk for MSKI. We expect this novel approach to exhibit superior accuracy than the current gold standard. Future translational studies will determine utility in the context of clinical primary care.
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.