ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Accelerometers can correctly count orthopaedic patients' early post-operative steps while using walking aids.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- MediaPipe-Based Activity Analysis by Healthcare Professionals: Method Development and Technology Acceptance-A Pilot Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Practical Use of Wearable Activity Measurement Devices in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis of Multidisciplinary Expert Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Step count as a digital mobility outcome in orthopedics and orthopedic trauma surgery: a scoping review.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Analytical and clinical validation of step counting method in people living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Accelerometers can correctly count orthopaedic patients' early post-operative steps while using walking aids.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Effective rehabilitation after orthopaedic surgery is critical. The early post-operative phase is increasingly managed in outpatient settings, necessitating objective measures such as step counts to monitor rehabilitation progress. However, it remains unclear if commercially available wearables or accelerometers using simple algorithms can accurately count steps in early post-operative conditions. We hypothesised that only accelerometers could accurately determine the number of steps under these conditions. Methods: This case series involved 20 healthy subjects, 7 female and 13 males, walking in a circle at varying speeds under partial loading with three different walking aids (forearm crutches, walking frame and rolling walker) and four wearables (Vivofit 4, Fenix 3HR, Fitbit Charge 3 and Omron HJ-325) and one accelerometer (AX6) worn on the wrist, hip and ankle. The two-point and modified three-point gait patterns commonly used post-operatively were simulated. The primary end point was the relative error (RE), defined as RE = (manual count - automated count)/manual count, of each wearable measurement compared to visual and video step counting, the gold standard. Results: The RE of AX6 and Fitbit was less than 0.1 for all walking aids except the rolling walker, with AX6 showing the lowest standard deviation (SD) compared to other wearables. Other wearables had significantly higher RE. Increased gait speed generally improved accuracy, reducing RE in most devices, except for the AX6, which showed the opposite trend. At 0.6 m/s, only AX6 achieved an RE below 0.1. The ankle was identified as the best measuring location. Conclusion: During the early post-operative period, commercial wearables can only accurately count steps under specific conditions and should be used cautiously for monitoring steps in the early post-operative phase. However, accelerometers with appropriate coding appear suitable for this purpose. Level of Evidence: Level III diagnostic study.
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.