SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Pressure Sensors for Measuring Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics in Meniscal Root Repair: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundTibiofemoral contact mechanics (TFCM) is an accepted biomechanical metrics for evaluating the meniscus in its intact, torn, and repaired states. Pressure sensors are increasingly used, with accuracy and repeatability influenced by test conditions, their design, and their properties. To identify factors optimising performance, we performed a systematic review of the literature on their use for measuring TFCM in posterior meniscal root tears.
methodsThe Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review using the PRISMA criteria. As laboratory and surgical setup can influence sensor performance, we collected data on specimen preparation, repair techniques, hardware use, and biomechanical testing parameters.
results24 biomechanical studies were included. Specimen preparations were similar across studies with respect to femoral and tibial mounting. Single axial compressive forces were applied between 100 and 1800 N at varying flexion angles (0-90°). Tekscan (Boston, MA, USA) was the commonest sensor used to measure TFCM, followed by digital capacitive sensors and Fujifilm (Tokyo, Japan). Factors influencing their performance included fluid exposure, lack of adequate fixation, non-specific calibration protocols, load saturation exceeding calibration, damaged sensels and inappropriate pre-test conditioning.
conclusionsUnderstanding potential factors influencing pressure sensors may improve accuracy, area, and pressure distribution measurements.
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.