ArticleCureus2025
Wearable Sensors to Aid Rehabilitation Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: Experiences of Trial Participants.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Physiotherapy is key to satisfactory outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, financial constraints have necessitated a reduction in face-to-face post-operative outpatient physiotherapy sessions. Wearable sensors have been used for remote rehabilitation but with variable outcomes and adherence. In addition, patient experiences and views about the use of wearable sensors are rarely contextualised. Methods A single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) is ongoing in the UK to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of wearable sensors in patients undergoing TKA. Participants of the accelerometry and rehabilitation after knee replacement (ARK) study were interviewed during a six-month follow-up clinic to explore trial experiences and suggestions for improvement. Responses were coded independently by two investigators using directed content analysis and a pre-determined framework of categories. Results were compared until consensus was reached. A summative approach was undertaken to analyse the resulting codes by frequency. Results Responses were recorded from 114 participants recruited in the ARK RCT: 62 from the intervention arm and 52 from the standard care arm. Common patient experience topics related to research involvement, wearable technology, rehabilitation support and communication, exercises, and general outcome. Areas for improvement included exercises, technology, questionnaires, and rehabilitation support and communication. Conclusions This study adds an important dimension to an RCT and provides direction for improvement. Research in both wearable sensors and the field of orthopaedics is often only quantitative in nature, and qualitative research provides a useful and unique dimension to these areas. Future work should further explore qualitative data in these fields.
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.