ArticleScientific reports2025
Effectiveness of home based continuous passive motion compared with conventional physical therapy after arthroscopic release of degenerative elbow stiffness.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Postoperative multimodal pain management: a narrative review of current practices, clinical and educational gaps, and future directions.Frontiers in anesthesiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Continuous Passive Motion (CPM) has been widely used in rehabilitation, yet its effectiveness compared to conventional physical therapy (PT) following elbow contracture release remains unclear. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the effectiveness of home-based immersive CPM training versus manual PT in promoting functional recovery of the elbow. Clinical records of 40 patients with moderate to severe elbow osteoarthritis who underwent standardized arthroscopic release between 2020 and 2022 were reviewed. Among them, 20 patients received home-based CPM rehabilitation, and 20 underwent conventional PT. After a 3-month follow-up, the CPM group demonstrated superior improvements in range of motion (ROM), with an estimated increase of [Formula: see text] (95% CI, 7 to 20; p = 0.005), and a higher percentage increase in ROM (83.03% vs 61.29%, p = 0.01). The likelihood of attaining functional ROM was 35% greater in the CPM group (risk ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.78; p = 0.03), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) scores were significantly higher, with a 6-point difference (95% CI, 2 to 10; p = 0.02). Furthermore, CPM was more cost-efficient, with monthly rehabilitation costs of 500 RMB compared to 2850 RMB for PT. The primary outcome was ROM improvement, and secondary outcomes included MEPS scores, functional ROM attainment, and rehabilitation cost. As this was a retrospective study based on existing clinical records, trial registration was not required. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Cangzhou Fifth Hospital (Approval No. QXRMYY202003). In conclusion, home-based immersive CPM rehabilitation was associated with greater ROM improvements, better pain management, and enhanced functional recovery compared to conventional PT in patients recovering from elbow surgery.
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.