ArticleScientific reports2023
Common modelling assumptions affect the joint moments measured during passive joint mobilizations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Joint resistance to passive mobilization has already been estimated in-vivo in several studies by measuring the applied forces and moments while manipulating the joint. Nevertheless, in most of the studies, simplified modelling approaches are used to calculate this joint resistance. The impact of these simplifications is still unknown. We propose a protocol that enables a reference 3D inverse dynamics approach to be implemented and compared to common simplified approaches. Eight typically developed children and eight children with cerebral palsy were recruited and underwent a passive testing protocol, while applied forces and moments were measured through a 3D handheld dynamometer, simultaneously to its 3D kinematics and the 3D kinematics of the different segments. Then, passive joint resistance was estimated using the reference 3D inverse dynamics approach and according to 5 simplified approaches found in the literature, i.e. ignoring either the dynamometer kinematics, the measured moments alone or together with the measured tangential forces, the gravity and the inertia of the different segments, or the distal segments kinematics. These simplifications lead to non-negligible differences with respect to the reference 3D inverse dynamics, from 3 to 32% for the ankle, 4 to 34% for the knee and 1 to 58% for the hip depending of the different simplifications. Finally, we recommend a complete 3D kinematics and dynamics modelling to estimate the joint resistance to passive mobilization.
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.