ArticleJournal of tribology2026
A Historical Evaluation of Articular Cartilage Lubrication Studies Reveals Distinct Testing Approach Specific Behaviors.
Article in Journal of tribology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Healthy articular cartilage can sustain near-frictionless motion within the joint; in vivo friction coefficients fall well within the superlubricity regime (<0.01). However, despite nearly a century of study, the mechanisms underpinning these behaviors remain unclear. This uncertainty has been compounded by how cartilage's operating conditions have been defined and subsequently extended to explant testing approaches, resulting in drastically varied tribological responses. To address these discrepancies, we compared friction coefficient results from a comprehensive set of historical cartilage explant tribology studies, and from new data evaluating testing configuration (stationary contact area (SCA) versus convergent SCA (cSCA)) and lubricant (phosphate-buffered saline versus synovial fluid (SF)) choice on friction. These data demonstrate that the SCA, the most common testing configuration utilized, consistently reports friction greater than that of the migrating contact area (MCA) and cSCA configurations. Intriguingly, while the SCA and MCA are almost universally slid at sub-physiological speeds (~1 mm/s), the cSCA has routinely been tested at more physiologically consistent speeds (~60 mm/s). Nevertheless, SF drives noticeable reductions in friction within both SCA and cSCA studies. Importantly, particularly in vivo, only rapidly slid, SF-lubricated cSCA cartilage explants reliably demonstrate biofidelic friction (<0.005), indicating that hydrodynamic-related phenomena must not be discounted in cartilage lubrication. Collectively, these results underscore the need to further probe mechanisms of sustained cartilage superlubricity, a key finding only recently replicated via the cSCA configuration. Such knowledge will be crucial to understanding the true lubrication capacity of articular cartilage.
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.