ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Digital rehabilitation with smart devices : Clinical evidence and practical implications].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital rehabilitation using apps, wearables, sensor feedback, and remote follow-up is being increasingly used in orthopedics. Clinically, the key issue is not technical novelty but whether function, mobility, adherence, and healthcare costs are significantly improved compared with conventional care.
objectivesTo provide a clinically oriented appraisal of current evidence on smart-device-based rehabilitation in orthopedics and derive practical implications for everyday care. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinically oriented narrative review with a structured appraisal of selected systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and relevant original studies on smart-device-based rehabilitation in orthopedics.
resultsThe strongest evidence is available after knee and hip arthroplasty. App-based telerehabilitation usually achieves comparable functional outcomes to conventional rehabilitation and may improve selected performance measures and reduce physiotherapy use. Simple activity trackers mainly increase step count but have smaller effects on pain and disease-specific scores. Sensor-based biofeedback and VR/AR approaches appear more promising but are partly supported by smaller and heterogeneous studies. Outside arthroplasty, positive signals exist for hip fracture rehabilitation, knee osteoarthritis, and selected spine programs.
conclusionsDigital rehabilitation is not a uniform intervention. In practice, patient selection, adequate instruction, feedback, and a realistic appraisal of evidence quality are more important than choosing the newest device.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42678428What 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.