Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38715987›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024

The use of actigraphy to objectively define motion and function before and after shoulder arthroplasty.

Christopher Morgan, Mathew Hargreaves, Marshall Williams, Robert E Hoyt, Dallas H Snider, Mark Callanan, Andrea Nelson, Eugene W Brabston, Amit M Momaya, Brent A Ponce and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Christopher MorganUniverstiy of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Mathew HargreavesUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Marshall WilliamsHughston Clinic, Columbus, GA, USA.
Robert E HoytUniversity of West Florida, Department of Health Sciences, Pensacola, FL, USA.
Dallas H SniderUniversity of West Florida, Department of Health Sciences, Pensacola, FL, USA.
Mark CallananAndrews Institute, Gulf Breeze, FL, USA.
Andrea NelsonUniversity of West Florida, Department of Health Sciences, Pensacola, FL, USA.
Eugene W BrabstonUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Amit M MomayaUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Brent A PonceHughston Clinic, Columbus, GA, USA.
Christopher O'GradyAndrews Institute, Gulf Breeze, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Actigraphy is a quantitative means of measuring activity data that has proven viable in post-surgery recovery analysis for arthroplasties in lower extremities, but scant literature has been published on the utilization actigraphy to evaluate shoulder motion and function before and after shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this prospective cohort study is to identify if actigraphy can serve as a valid means for objective evaluation of shoulder function and motion before and after shoulder arthroplasty. Secondarily, the data collected by the actigraphy can be analyzed with standard patient-reported outcomes to report correlations between the subjective and objective methods used in this study. Materials and methods: Sixty-four subjects wore an actigraphy device for one day at pre-op, six, twelve and twenty-four weeks. In addition, subjects completed three patient-reported outcome surveys at each time-point. Student t-tests were used to compare percent activity preoperatively with 24-weeks and to compare PROs preoperatively with 24-week results; categorical variables were compared with one-way ANOVAs. Results: All Patient reported outcome scores significantly improved following arthroplasty (p-value<0.001). The percent of physical activity was highly correlated with vector magnitude (p-value<0.001), but neither percent activity or the vector magnitude were correlated with any of the PROs: UCLA Pain p-value = 0.656, SANE p-value = 0.328, UCLA Function p-value = 0.532. Conclusions: Actigraphy results from this study mirror findings in previous literature utilizing the technology in similar manners and demonstrate its potential for motion and function analysis before and after total shoulder arthroplasties. Despite both being suitable methods independently for the evaluation of shoulder function, there was no significant correlation between standard actigraphy measurements and PROs at 24-weeks. Future research to determine clinical utility and an overall broader scope for actigraphy monitoring could benefit from improved technology, such as increased battery life for prolonged durations of data collection during observation periods.

Indexed as

ActigraphyPatient reported outcomesTotal shoulder arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID38715987
PMCPMC11070592

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.