The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to drastic changes in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases. Due to the imminent risk of infection, monitoring intervals of rheumatic patients have prolonged. The aim of this study is to present insights from patients, rheumatologists, and digital product developers on the ongoing digital health transition in rheumatology. A qualitative and participatory semi-structured fishbowl approach was conducted to gain detailed insights from a total of 476 participants. The main findings show that digital health and remote care are generally welcomed by the participants. Five key themes emerged from the qualitative content analysis: (1) digital rheumatology use cases, (2) user descriptions, (3) adaptation to different environments of rheumatology care, and (4) potentials of and (5) barriers to digital rheumatology implementation. Codes were scaled by positive and negative ratings as well as on micro, meso, and macro levels. A main recommendation resulting from the insights is that both patients and rheumatologists need more information and education to successfully implement digital health tools into clinical routine.

A mathematical model describing isothermal, two-phase flow in porous media has been developed. The model, which consists of describing differential equations and algorithms for their numerical solution, was applied to the problem of vertical groundwater movement in unsaturated soils in the absence of evaporation and transpiration. The equations describing water-air flow through porous media are second order, nonlinear partial differential equations. These equations were converted to finite difference form and were solved with the aid of a digital computer using an iterative implicit procedure. The model includes effective permeabilities of each phase and capillary pressure as functions of liq.uid saturation. The properties of the porous media may be varied in the model as functions of position. A comparison was made between computed results and experimental field data on moisture movement beneath a shallow surface pond. Water was added to the pond at controlled rates to maintain an approximately constant head for a set time period. Following this wetting period the pond was kept d.ry, but covered to reduce evaporation. At different times during the wetting and dwing periods, neutron logs were run to measure water saturation versus depth at depths of up to 22 feet. The experiment was simulated with the computer model and excellent agreement between calculated results and the data was obtained; thus the mathematical model could be used to describe soil moisture movement during wetting and drying periods. Pw • Pwboundary • X---Xboundary (6) Pa • Paboandary 864 GREEN ET AL.

ObjectivesTransparent reporting of clinical trials is essential to assess the risk of bias and translate research findings into clinical practice. While existing studies have shown that deficiencies are common, detailed empirical and field-specific data are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to examine current clinical trial reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedics.SettingExploratory meta-research study on reporting quality and transparent research practices in orthopaedics and sports medicine clinical trials.ParticipantsThe sample included clinical trials published in the top 25% of sports medicine and orthopaedics journals over 9 months.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTwo independent reviewers assessed pre-registration, open data and criteria related to scientific rigour, like randomisation, blinding, and sample size calculations, as well as the study sample, and data analysis.ResultsThe sample included 163 clinical trials from 27 journals. While the majority of trials mentioned rigour criteria, essential details were often missing. Sixty per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 68%) of trials reported sample size calculations, but only 32% (95% CI 25% to 39%) justified the expected effect size. Few trials indicated the blinding status of all main stakeholders (4%; 95% CI 1% to 7%). Only 18% (95% CI 12% to 24%) included information on randomisation type, method and concealed allocation. Most trials reported participants’ sex/gender (95%; 95% CI 92% to 98%) and information on inclusion and exclusion criteria (78%; 95% CI 72% to 84%). Only 20% (95% CI 14% to 26%) of trials were pre-registered. No trials deposited data in open repositories.ConclusionsThese results will aid the sports medicine and orthopaedics community in developing tailored interventions to improve reporting. While authors typically mention blinding, randomisation and other factors, essential details are often missing. Greater acceptance of open science practices, like pre-registration and open data, is needed. As these practices have been widely encouraged, we discuss systemic interventions that may improve clinical trial reporting.

No abstract

No abstract

Multiply English units inches (in.) feet (ft) miles (mi) feet per day (ft/d) feet per hour (ft/hr) feet per minute (ft/min) square feet (ft2) square feet per day (ft2/d) cubic feet (ft3)

This article is a guidance how to write systematic reviews (SR's) and meta-analyses (MA) in orthopaedics and which aspects to focus on for transparency, systematicity and readability. Both SR and MA summarise and synthesise the best evidence available on a speciic topic. This requires a systematic, structured and transparent process of analysis. The title should be concise, indicate type of review and ideally report the most important inding. Next, the structured abstract (no more than 350 words) should also raise key points and report the overall level of evidence. A relevant clinical question must be deined before the literature search is started. Methodological details such as databases searched, the exact search strategy (including time frame), inclusion/exclusion criteria, method of literature appraisal and statistical analysis must be described briely. The primary and secondary outcomes should be mentioned. SR's be pre-registered before data extraction, to ensure transparency and the reduction of risk of bias. If registered, registration number should be stated in the abstract and the funding sources. A clear summary of the indings is important including the number of identiied studies (depicted in a lowchart) and for meta-analyses a forest plot. The results of the literature appraisal and statistical analyses should be reported precisely. Subsequently, a general interpretation of indings and their signiicance and relevance to clinical practice should be provided. Clinical implications from the analysis should be drawn carefully and further research questions should be addressed. Finally, a conclusion, based solely on the results of the study is a necessity. Up to ten keywords are requested representing the main content of the article. Most applicable keywords should facilitate inding the manuscript in the databases and therefor considered carefully.

In clinical practice, only a few reliable measurement instruments are available for monitoring knee joint rehabilitation. Advances to replace motion capturing with sensor data measurement have been made in the last years. Thus, a systematic review of the literature was performed, focusing on the implementation, diagnostic accuracy, and facilitators and barriers of integrating wearable sensor technology in clinical practices based on a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. For critical appraisal, the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool for reliability and measurement of error was used. PUBMED, Prospero, Cochrane database, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Six studies reporting reliability aspects in using wearable sensor technology at any point after knee surgery in humans were included. All studies reported excellent results with high reliability coefficients, high limits of agreement, or a few detectable errors. They used different or partly inappropriate methods for estimating reliability or missed reporting essential information. Therefore, a moderate risk of bias must be considered. Further quality criterion studies in clinical settings are needed to synthesize the evidence for providing transparent recommendations for the clinical use of wearable movement sensors in knee joint rehabilitation.