ArticleIEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society2026
Laboratory Environments Mask Gait Differences Between Healthy Participants and Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2026. 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.
- Biomechanics-informed inertial tracking achieves the accuracy of marker-based kinematics.Nature communications · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Previous work suggests that people with mobility impairments move differently in the traditional gait laboratory than in natural environments, but the extent to which this possible divergence may have limited understanding of gait following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains unknown. We hypothesized that 1) patients following ACLR walk more asymmetrically in daily life than in the laboratory and 2) differences between patients following ACLR and individuals with no gait pathologies would be more pronounced in daily life than in the laboratory. Twelve participants (six post-ACLR, six healthy) completed gait assessments in the laboratory with optical motion capture and inertial measurement units (IMUs) and in daily life with IMUs. Patients walked similarly to healthy participants in the laboratory, but in daily life they walked with a longer gait-cycle time ( $1.22~\pm ~0.03$ s vs. $1.08~\pm ~0.06$ s), longer double-support phase ( $21.8~\pm ~1.3$ % vs. $17.9~\pm ~2.7$ % Gait Cycle Time), and greater single-support asymmetry ( $8.4~\pm ~0.9$ % vs $4.1~\pm ~0.7$ %). While the reasons behind the observed differences were not studied, these results suggest that gait-analysis studies to date may have not realistically captured natural-environment behavior. Wearable sensors now offer a path toward deeper understanding of post-surgical gait and the specific patterns that may place certain patients at risk for post-traumatic osteoarthritis.
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.