Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Im April diskutierten die Herz-Kreislauf-Spezialisten aus der ganzen Welt auf dem  Kongress des American College of Cardiology (ACC) u.a. neue Therapieansätze bei akutem Myokardinfarkt, koronarer Herzerkrankung, kardiogenem Schock oder Aortenklappenstenose. In unserem Kongress-Dossier haben wir für Sie Berichte über die „Late-Breaking Trials“ und andere wichtige Studien zusammengestellt. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Sports Medicine
Erschienen in: Sports Medicine 9/2017

16.03.2017 | Systematic Review

Accelerometer Data Collection and Processing Criteria to Assess Physical Activity and Other Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Practical Considerations

verfasst von: Jairo H. Migueles, Cristina Cadenas-Sanchez, Ulf Ekelund, Christine Delisle Nyström, Jose Mora-Gonzalez, Marie Löf, Idoia Labayen, Jonatan R. Ruiz, Francisco B. Ortega

Erschienen in: Sports Medicine | Ausgabe 9/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Accelerometers are widely used to measure sedentary time, physical activity, physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE), and sleep-related behaviors, with the ActiGraph being the most frequently used brand by researchers. However, data collection and processing criteria have evolved in a myriad of ways out of the need to answer unique research questions; as a result there is no consensus.

Objectives

The purpose of this review was to: (1) compile and classify existing studies assessing sedentary time, physical activity, energy expenditure, or sleep using the ActiGraph GT3X/+ through data collection and processing criteria to improve data comparability and (2) review data collection and processing criteria when using GT3X/+ and provide age-specific practical considerations based on the validation/calibration studies identified.

Methods

Two independent researchers conducted the search in PubMed and Web of Science. We included all original studies in which the GT3X/+ was used in laboratory, controlled, or free-living conditions published from 1 January 2010 to the 31 December 2015.

Results

The present systematic review provides key information about the following data collection and processing criteria: placement, sampling frequency, filter, epoch length, non-wear-time, what constitutes a valid day and a valid week, cut-points for sedentary time and physical activity intensity classification, and algorithms to estimate PAEE and sleep-related behaviors. The information is organized by age group, since criteria are usually age-specific.

Conclusion

This review will help researchers and practitioners to make better decisions before (i.e., device placement and sampling frequency) and after (i.e., data processing criteria) data collection using the GT3X/+ accelerometer, in order to obtain more valid and comparable data.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42016039991.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
2.
Fletcher G, Balady G, Blair S, et al. Statement on exercise: benefits and recommendations for physical activity programs for all Americans. Circulation. 1996;94:857–62.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Janssen I, Leblanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Warren JM, Ekelund U, Besson H, et al. Assessment of physical activity—a review of methodologies with reference to epidemiological research: a report of the exercise physiology section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010;17:127–39.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Bassett DR, Rowlands A, Trost SG. Calibration and validation of wearable monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:32–8.CrossRef
6.
Rothney MP, Brychta RJ, Meade NN, et al. Validation of the ActiGraph two-regression model for predicting energy expenditure. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:1785–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Sasaki JE, John D, Freedson PS. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14:411–6.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Baranowski T, Dworkin RJ, Cieslik CJ, et al. Reliability and validity of self-report of aerobic activity—Family Health Project. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1984;55:309–17.CrossRef
9.
Sallis JF. Self-report measures of children’s physical activity. J Sch Health. 1991;61:215–9.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Sirard JR, Pate RR. Physical activity assessment in children and adolescents. Sports Med. 2001;31:439–54.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard JR. Calibration of the computer science and applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:777–81.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, et al. Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci. 2008;26:1557–65.PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
Copeland JL, Esliger DW. Accelerometer assessment of physical activity in active, healthy older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2009;17:17–30.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Chandler JL, Brazendale K, Beets MW, et al. Classification of physical activity intensities using a wrist-worn accelerometer in 8- to 12-year-old children. Pediatr Obes. 2015;11(2):120–7. doi:10.​1111/​ijpo.​12033.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Sadeh A, Sharkey KM, Carskadon MA. Activity-based sleep-wake identification: an empirical test of methodological issues. Sleep. 1994;17(3):201–6.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Cole RJ, Kripke DF, Gruen W, et al. Automatic sleep/wake identification from wrist activity. Sleep. 1992;15:461–9.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Tudor-Locke C, Barreira TV, Schuna JM, et al. Fully automated waist-worn accelerometer algorithm for detecting children’s sleep-period time separate from 24-h physical activity or sedentary behaviors. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014;39:53–7.PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Crouter SE, Horton M, Bassett DR. Use of a two-regression model for estimating energy expenditure in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:1177–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Trost SG, Ward DS, Moorehead SM, et al. Validity of the computer science and applications (CSA) activity monitor in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:629–33.PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
24.
25.
Wijndaele K, Westgate K, Stephens SK, et al. Utilization and harmonization of adult accelerometry data. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(10):2129–39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
27.
Santos-Lozano A, Santín-Medeiros F, Cardon G, et al. Actigraph GT3X: validation and determination of physical activity intensity cut points. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34:975–82.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Ellis K, Kerr J, Godbole S, et al. A random forest classifier for the prediction of energy expenditure and type of physical activity from wrist and hip accelerometers. Physiol Meas. 2014;35:2191–203.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Kim Y, Lee JM, Peters BP, et al. Examination of different accelerometer cut-points for assessing sedentary behaviors in children. PLoS One. 2014;9:1–8.
30.
Keadle SK, Shiroma EJ, Freedson PS, et al. Impact of accelerometer data processing decisions on the sample size, wear-time and physical activity level of a large cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1210.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, et al. Using accelerometers in youth physical activity studies: a review of methods. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10:437–50.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (Reprinted from Annals of Internal Medicine). Phys Ther. 2009;89:873–80.PubMed
34.
35.
36.
Tudor-Locke C, Barreira TV, Schuna JM, et al. Improving wear-time compliance with a 24-h waist-worn accelerometer protocol in the International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1):1–9.CrossRef
37.
38.
39.
Hjorth MF, Chaput JP, Damsgaard CT, et al. Measure of sleep and physical activity by a single accelerometer: can a waist-worn ActiGraph adequately measure sleep in children? Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2012;10:328–35.CrossRef
40.
41.
Ozemek C, Kirschner MM, Wilkerson BS, et al. Intermonitor reliability of the GT3X + accelerometer at hip, wrist and ankle sites during activities of daily living. Physiol Meas. 2014;35:129–38.PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
Stec MJ, Rawson ES. Estimation of resistance exercise energy expenditure using triaxial accelerometry. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26:1413–22.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Tudor-Locke C, Barreira TV, Schuna JM. Comparison of step outputs for waist and wrist accelerometer attachment sites. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;47(4):839.CrossRef
45.
Choi L, Ward SC, Schnelle JF, et al. Assessment of wear/nonwear-time classification algorithms for triaxial accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:2009–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
47.
Toftager M, Kristensen PL, Oliver M, et al. Accelerometer data reduction in adolescents: effects on sample retention and bias. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:140.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Freedson PS, John D. Comment on “Estimating activity and sedentary behavior from an accelerometer on the hip and wrist”. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:962–3.PubMedCrossRef
49.
50.
51.
Lyden K, Kozey Keadle SL, Staudenmayer JW, et al. Validity of two wearable monitors to estimate breaks from sedentary time. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:2243–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Ried-Larsen M, Brønd JC, Brage S, et al. Mechanical and free living comparisons of four generations of the ActiGraph activity monitor. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:1–10. doi:10.​1186/​1479-5868-9-113.CrossRef
53.
Cain KL, Conway TL, Adams MA, et al. Comparison of older and newer generations of ActiGraph accelerometers with the normal filter and the low frequency extension. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Cellini N, Buman MP, McDevitt EA, et al. Direct comparison of two actigraphy devices with polysomnographically recorded naps in healthy young adults. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30:691–8.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Wanner M, Martin BW, Meier F, et al. Effects of filter choice in GT3X accelerometer assessments of free-living activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:170–7.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Barreira TV, Brouillette RM, Foil HC, et al. Comparison of older adults steps/day using NL-1000 pedometer and two GTX+ accelerometer filters. J Aging Phys Act. 2012;21:402–16.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Jimmy G, Seiler R, Mäder U. Development and validation of GT3X accelerometer cut-off points in 5- to 9-year-old children based on indirect calorimetry measurements. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Sport und Sport. 2013;61:37–43.
58.
59.
Aibar A, Bois JE, Zaragoza J, et al. Do epoch lengths affect adolescents’ compliance with physical activity guidelines? J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2014;54:255–63.
60.
61.
Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, et al. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:181–8.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Choi L, Liu Z, Matthews E, et al. Validation of accelerometer wear and nonwear-time classification algorithm. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;43:357–64.CrossRef
63.
Katzmarzyk PT, Barreira TV, Broyles ST, et al. The International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE): design and methods. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:900–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
Janssen X, Cliff DP, Reilly JJ, et al. Predictive validity and classification accuracy of ActiGraph energy expenditure equations and cut-points in young children. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79124–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
Sirard JR, Trost SG, Pfeiffer KA, et al. Calibration and evaluation of an objective measure of physical activity in preschool children. J Phys Act Health. 2005;2:345–57.CrossRef
66.
Reilly JJ, Coyle J, Kelly L, et al. An objective method for measurement of sedentary behavior in 3- to 4-year olds. Obes Res. 2003;11:1155–8.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Pate RR, Almeida MJ, McIver KL, et al. Validation and calibration of an accelerometer in preschool children. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14:2000–6.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Puyau MR, Adolph AL, Vohra FA, et al. Validation and calibration of physical activity monitors in children. Obes Res. 2002;10:150–7.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Van Cauwenberghe E, Gubbels J, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. Feasibility and validity of accelerometer measurements to assess physical activity in toddlers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
Pulakka A, Cheung YB, Ashorn U, et al. Feasibility and validity of the ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer in measuring physical activity of Malawian toddlers. Acta Paediatr Int J Paediatr. 2013;102:1192–8.CrossRef
71.
Butte NF, Wong WW, Lee JS, et al. Prediction of energy expenditure and physical activity in preschoolers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46:1216–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
72.
73.
Vanhelst J, Béghin L, Turck D, et al. New validated thresholds for various intensities of physical activity in adolescents using the ActiGraph accelerometer. Int J Rehabil Res. 2011;34:175–7.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Freedson P, Pober D, Janz KF. Calibration of accelerometer output for children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:523–30.CrossRef
75.
Mattocks C, Leary S, Ness A, et al. Calibration of an accelerometer during free-living activities in children. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2007;2:218–26.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Peterson NE, Sirard JR, Kulbok PA, et al. Validation of accelerometer thresholds and inclinometry for measurement of sedentary behavior in young adult university students. Res Nurs Health. 2015;38:492–8. doi:10.​1002/​nur.​21694.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Rowlands AV, Rennie K, Kozarski R, et al. Children’s physical activity assessed with wrist- and hip-worn accelerometers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;2006:2308–16.CrossRef
78.
Aittasalo M, Vähä-Ypyä H, Vasankari T, et al. Mean amplitude deviation calculated from raw acceleration data: a novel method for classifying the intensity of adolescents’ physical activity irrespective of accelerometer brand. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2015;7:18. doi:10.​1186/​s13102-015-0010-0.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
79.
Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Lyden K, et al. Validation of wearable monitors for assessing sedentary behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1561–7.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Vähä-Ypyä H, Vasankari T, Husu P, et al. A universal, accurate intensity-based classification of different physical activities using raw data of accelerometer. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2015;35(1):64–70. doi:10.​1111/​cpf.​12127.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Zakeri IF, Adolph AL, Puyau MR, et al. Cross-sectional time series and multivariate adaptive regression splines models using accelerometry and heart rate predict energy expenditure of preschoolers. J Nutr. 2013;143:114–22.PubMedCrossRef
82.
83.
Meredith-Jones K, Williams S, Galland B, et al. 24 h accelerometry: impact of sleep-screening methods on estimates of sedentary behaviour and physical activity while awake. J Sports Sci. 2015;414:1–7. doi:10.​1080/​02640414.​2015.​1068438.
84.
85.
86.
87.
Zinkhan M, Berger K, Hense S, et al. Agreement of different methods for assessing sleep characteristics: a comparison of two actigraphs, wrist and hip placement, and self-report with polysomnography. Sleep Med. 2014;15(9):1107–14. doi:10.​1016/​j.​sleep.​2014.​04.​015.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Trost SG, Mciver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:531–43.CrossRef
89.
Tryon WW, Williams R. Fully proportional actigraphy: a new instrument. Behav Res Methods Instru Comput. 1996;28:392–403.CrossRef
90.
91.
92.
John D, Miller R, Kozey-Keadle S, et al. Biomechanical examination of the “plateau phenomenon” in ActiGraph vertical activity counts. Physiol Meas. 2012;33:219–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
93.
Robusto KM, Trost SG. Comparison of three generations of ActiGraph™ activity monitors in children and adolescents. J Sports Sci. 2012;30:1429–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
94.
Grydeland M, Hansen BH, Ried-Larsen M, et al. Comparison of three generations of ActiGraph activity monitors under free-living conditions: do they provide comparable assessments of overall physical activity in 9-year old children? BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2014;6:26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
95.
Treuth MS, Schmitz K, Catellier DJ, et al. Defining accelerometer thresholds for activity intensities in adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:1259–66.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
96.
Ridgers ND, Salmon J, Ridley K, et al. Agreement between activPAL and ActiGraph for assessing children’s sedentary time. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
97.
Matthews CE, Chen KY, Freedson PS, et al. Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003-2004. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:875–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
98.
Metzger JS, Catellier DJ, Evenson KR, et al. Patterns of objectively measured physical activity in the United States. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:630–8.PubMedCrossRef
99.
Davis MG, Fox KR. Physical activity patterns assessed by accelerometry in older people. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007;100:581–9.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Andersen LB, Harro M, Sardinha LB, et al. Physical activity and clustered cardiovascular risk in children: a cross-sectional study (The European Youth Heart Study). Yearb Sport Med. 2006;368:299–304.
101.
Van Cauwenberghe E, Labarque V, Trost SG, et al. Calibration and comparison of accelerometer cut points in preschool children. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2011;6:e582–9.PubMedCrossRef
102.
Grydeland M, Bergh IH, Bjelland M, et al. Correlates of weight status among Norwegian 11-year-olds: the HEIA study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1053.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
103.
Matthews C. Calibration for accelerometer output for adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;S512:S512–22.CrossRef
104.
Pruitt LA, Glynn NW, King AC, et al. Use of accelerometry to measure physical activity in older adults at risk for mobility disability. J Aging Phys Act. 2008;16:416–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
105.
Zisko N, Carlsen T, Salvesen Ø, et al. New relative intensity ambulatory accelerometer thresholds for elderly men and women: the Generation 100 study. BMC Geriatr. 2015;15:97.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
106.
Crouter SE, Churilla JR, Bassett DR. Estimating energy expenditure using accelerometers. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;98:601–12.PubMedCrossRef
107.
108.
Liu S, Gao RX, Freedson PS. Computational methods for estimating energy expenditure in human physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:2138–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
109.
Schmitz KH, Treuth M, Hannan P, et al. Predicting energy expenditure from accelerometry counts in adolescents girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:155–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
110.
Mâsse LC, Fuemmeler BF, Anderson CB, et al. Accelerometer data reduction: a comparison of four reduction algorithms on select outcome variables. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11 Suppl):S544–54.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Accelerometer Data Collection and Processing Criteria to Assess Physical Activity and Other Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Practical Considerations
verfasst von
Jairo H. Migueles
Cristina Cadenas-Sanchez
Ulf Ekelund
Christine Delisle Nyström
Jose Mora-Gonzalez
Marie Löf
Idoia Labayen
Jonatan R. Ruiz
Francisco B. Ortega
Publikationsdatum
16.03.2017
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Sports Medicine / Ausgabe 9/2017
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0716-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2017

Sports Medicine 9/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Letter to the Editor

Authors’ Reply to Dotan and Falk: “Are Prepubertal Children Metabolically Comparable to Well-Trained Adult Endurance Athletes?”

Current Opinion

Team Sports Performance Analysed Through the Lens of Social Network Theory: Implications for Research and Practice

Review Article

Cross-Adaptation: Heat and Cold Adaptation to Improve Physiological and Cellular Responses to Hypoxia

Letter to the Editor

Comment on: “Are Prepubertal Children Metabolically Comparable to Well-Trained Adult Endurance Athletes?”

Systematic Review

Chronotype, Physical Activity, and Sport Performance: A Systematic Review

Systematic Review

Exercise-Based Interventions for Injury Prevention in Tackle Collision Ball Sports: A Systematic Review

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

17.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Sie sei „ethisch geboten“, meint Gesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach: mehr Transparenz über die Qualität von Klinikbehandlungen. Um sie abzubilden, lässt er gegen den Widerstand vieler Länder einen virtuellen Klinik-Atlas freischalten.

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

15.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Gesundheitsminister Lauterbach hat die vom Bundeskabinett beschlossene Klinikreform verteidigt. Kritik an den Plänen kommt vom Marburger Bund. Und in den Ländern wird über den Gang zum Vermittlungsausschuss spekuliert.

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

15.05.2024 Knie-TEP Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Operationsrobotern für den Einbau von Totalendoprothesen des Kniegelenks hat die Präzision der Eingriffe erhöht. Für die postoperative Zufriedenheit der Patienten scheint das aber unerheblich zu sein, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise