ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Wearable sensor systems measure differences in knee laxity between healthy and affected knees during dynamic exercise activities: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationship of LCL finding after post-op ACLR with anterior tibial translation, femorotibial rotation, knee scores, and functional performance: a retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Wearable Technology Applications and Methods to Assess Clinical Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Disorders: Achievements and Perspectives.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Wearable sensor systems measure differences in knee laxity between healthy and affected knees during dynamic exercise activities: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
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
Purpose: Knee laxity can be experienced as knee instability which may lead to a limitation in the activity of patients. Current methods to determine knee instability are performed in a static setting, which does not always correlate with dynamic knee laxity during activities. Wearables might be able to measure knee laxity in a dynamic setting and could be of added value in the diagnosis and treatment of excessive knee laxity. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of the wearables that have been developed and their ability to measure knee laxity during dynamic activities. Methods: The PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. A literature search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases. Included studies assessed patients with knee instability using a non-invasive wearable sensor system during dynamic activity, with comparison to a reference system or healthy knees. Data extraction was performed by two authors via a predefined format. The risk of bias was assessed by The Dutch checklist for diagnostic tests. Results: A total of 4734 articles were identified. Thirteen studies were included in the review. The studies showed a great variety of patients, sensor systems, reference tests, outcome measures and performed activities. Nine of the included studies were able to measure differences in patients with knee instability, all including a tri-axial accelerometer. Differences were not measurable in all parameters and activities in these studies. Conclusions: Wearables, including at least a tri-axial accelerometer, seem promising for measuring dynamic knee laxity in the anterior-posterior and mediolateral direction. At this stage, it remains unclear if the measured outcomes completely reflect the knee instability that patients experience in daily life. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.