Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38227605›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2024

A randomised crossover trial of five cryocompression devices' ability to reduce skin temperature of the knee.

James Belsey, Andrew Reid, Eloise Paine, James Faulkner

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06673277 (Skin Temperature Response to Prolonged Cooling With an Electronic Continuous Cold-flow Cryocompression Device), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06673277 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Skin Temperature Response to Prolonged Cooling With an Electronic Continuous Cold-flow Cryocompression Device: a Safety and Feasibility Pilot

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of WinchesterRan2025 to 2025Enrolled16ConditionsSkin Temperature Change, Adverse Effects, Safety of Intervention, CryotherapyArmsProlonged (2-hour) cryocompression therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

4 authors.

James BelseySchool of Sport, Health & Community, Faculty of Health & Wellbeing, University of Winchester, Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7405-9281
Andrew ReidSchool of Sport, Health & Community, Faculty of Health & Wellbeing, University of Winchester, Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
Eloise PaineSchool of Sport, Health & Community, Faculty of Health & Wellbeing, University of Winchester, Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
James FaulknerSchool of Sport, Health & Community, Faculty of Health & Wellbeing, University of Winchester, Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3704-6737

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of cold and pressure to the knee is a common part of post-operative rehabilitation. Skin temperature should be reduced to within 10-15 °C to optimise the therapeutic benefits of cryocompression. The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of five different cryocompression devices to reduce skin temperature to within this therapeutic range. MATERIALS AND

methods32 healthy adult participants (mean (SD): age 26.3 (7.9) years; BMI 24.8 (2.7) kg/m2; 20 males) were recruited for this randomised crossover study. Skin temperature was measured 20 mm distal to the patella using a k-type thermocouple every five minutes during a 30-minute treatment with one of five different cryocompression devices (Physiolab S1, GameReady, Cryo/Cuff, VPulse, and a Gel Wrap). Changes in skin temperature over time were compared to baseline within and between conditions. A subjective rating of comfort was also recorded for each device.

resultsThe Physiolab S1 and GameReady devices caused significantly lower skin temperatures compared to the VPulse, Gel Wrap, and Cryo/Cuff after 30 minutes (p<0.05). 87-96% reported a positive comfort rating for the Physiolab S1, VPulse, Cryo/Cuff and Gel Wrap, whereas 53% of participants reported a positive comfort rating for the GameReady.

conclusionsOnly the Physiolab S1 and GameReady devices reduced skin temperature of the knee to within the target range of 10-15 °C. The Physiolab S1 was reportedly more comfortable than the GameReady. Clinicians should be aware of the performance differences of different cryocompression devices to understand which is most likely to provide an effective dose of cold therapy to a joint.

Indexed as

KneeSkin TemperatureAdultCross-Over StudiesCryotherapyHumansKnee JointMale

Identifiers

PMID38227605
PMCPMC10790989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.