ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
The effect of the Ankle Pump Exercise (APE) counter system assisted ankle pump motion in patients after femoral neck fracture.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifiable ankle pump exercise monitoring for early postoperative rehabilitation after hip and knee arthroplasty: an exploratory randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Trial
- Effects of different frequencies of ankle pump exercise on lower limb hemodynamics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the effect of the Ankle Pump Exercise (APE) counter system on moderate to high-risk Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after femoral neck fracture surgery.
methodsFrom June 2021 to June 2022, a total of 140 patients with moderate and high-risk VTE after femoral neck fracture surgery treated at the Department of Orthopedics of a tertiary hospital in Zhejiang were included and divided into observation (70 cases) and control (70 cases) groups according to whether APE counter system was used or not. The control group was given routine oral propaganda, and the observation group was given a comprehensive nursing intervention with APE counter system on the basis of the control group's treatment. The compliance rates of the two groups on the postoperative 3st, 5rd, and 7th days were compared. Moreover, the General self-efficacy scale (GSES) was used to evaluate self-efficacy before and after exercise.
resultsThe compliance rates of the control group and the observation group on the postoperative 3st, 5rd, and 7th days were 74.3% vs. 85.7%, 67.1% vs. 85.7%, and 61.4% vs. 82.9%. On the 5rd and 7th days, the compliance of the observation group was obviously higher than that of the control group. Moreover, the mean postoperative GSES score was also significantly higher than that in the control group (23.20 ± 3.516 vs. 25.31 ± 4.583, P < 0.05, values are expressed in mean ± standard).
conclusionAPE counter system can significantly improve the compliance and self-efficacy of patients with moderate and high-risk VTE after lower limb fracture surgery.
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.