ReviewOrthopedic research and reviews2025
Weight-Bearing Monitoring Devices in Lower Extremity Fractures: A Scoping Review.
Review in Orthopedic research and reviews, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Orthopaedic surgeons commonly prescribe weight-bearing parameters for their patients for a variety of reasons. Weight-bearing may be limited in order to control the healing environment, but advancing a patient's weight-bearing status is preferably done as quickly as possible to maximize functional recovery. However, it is entirely unclear to what extent these prescriptions are followed in practice. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and compare non-invasive devices used for the measurement of weight-bearing following lower extremity fractures. Methods: Database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were completed to identify relevant studies. Titles were screened for relevance, and abstracts were screened against the eligibility criteria. We identified studies that investigated the use of external force, pedal pressure, or activity monitoring devices used in adults after lower extremity fractures and excluded studies involving compartment pressure measurement. Findings: Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. About 39% of studies used an insole-type device, which could be worn in a shoe or integrated into a removable boot. Other device types included step count or activity monitors (52%), force plates (18%), pressure film (2%) and external pedobarography systems (27%). Interpretation: We found that different monitors offered varying types of measurements and are suitable for a variety of applications. Therefore, selecting the ideal device depends on the metric of interest. Further high-quality prospective studies utilizing device monitoring are needed to validate the theory that early weight-bearing is beneficial and safe for patients with lower extremity fractures.
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.