ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024
A scoping review on active vs. passive range of motion approaches to treat heterotopic ossification at the elbow.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2024. 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.
- When Bone Forms Where It Shouldn't: Heterotopic Ossification in Muscle Injury and Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize and clarify literature on the effectiveness of active and passive range of motion therapy techniques to address range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification (HO), and to provide guidance to therapists in clinical decision-making based on current evidence. Method: To find articles that included therapeutic interventions to maintain or improve range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification, the authors searched the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and OTSeeker. To ensure that the search was comprehensive, the authors also searched Burns and Trauma, Burns Journal, Burns Open, and the Journal of Hand Therapy. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in the English language. No publication date limits were set. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database PEDro scale was utilized to measure the validity of the methodological quality of each article. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria.. Two studies emphasized that passive range of motion was effective in less than 50% of their subjects, while the other three studies utilized active range of motion only, reporting 50% of patients did not require surgery. Discussion/conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to determine effective therapeutic management of HO and the literature that does exist is contradictory and inconclusive. Future research is necessary to determine if any effectiveness of manual therapeutic approaches exists for patients with HO.
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.