Short answer

Designers and engineers should focus on developing wearable systems that are not only technologically advanced but also demonstrably reliable, validated against gold standards, and seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows to facilitate their adoption in post-ACL injury rehabilitation.

Field
User-Centred Design
Source
Sensors (2025)
Method
Scoping Review
Evidence
Moderate effect

While wearable devices show potential for quantifying knee function after ACL injury or reconstruction, their current methodological quality and readiness for routine clinical use are limited by inconsistent reporting of calibration and validation. This user-centred design research insight is drawn from a 2025 study published in Sensors. Using Scoping review, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: Designers and engineers should focus on developing wearable systems that are not only technologically advanced but also demonstrably reliable, validated against gold standards, and seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows to facilitate their adoption in post-ACL injury rehabilitation.

Study
User-Centred DesignNew This WeekModerate effect

Wearable sensors can objectively assess knee function post-ACL injury, but require rigorous validation for clinical adoption.

While wearable devices show potential for quantifying knee function after ACL injury or reconstruction, their current methodological quality and readiness for routine clinical use are limited by inconsistent reporting of calibration and validation.

Sensors · 2025

01

Key Findings

  • 01Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) are the most frequently used devices for kinematic assessment.
  • 02Standalone accelerometers can quantify pivot-shift features, and force-sensing insoles can capture bilateral loading.
  • 03Higher-precision devices like electromagnetic trackers and electrogoniometers are limited by workflow complexities.
  • 04Reporting of calibration procedures and criterion validation was inconsistent across studies.
  • 05Most reviewed technologies were at Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) 3-6, indicating they are not yet ready for widespread clinical integration.
02

Application

Design takeaway

Designers and engineers should focus on developing wearable systems that are not only technologically advanced but also demonstrably reliable, validated against gold standards, and seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows to facilitate their adoption in post-ACL injury rehabilitation.

How to apply

When designing or evaluating wearable devices for rehabilitation, ensure that the design process includes comprehensive testing for accuracy, reliability, and usability in real-world clinical settings. Document calibration procedures meticulously and validate against established clinical assessment methods.

Project actions

  • 01When designing a wearable device, think about how you will prove it works accurately and reliably.
  • 02Consider how easy the device will be for both the user and a healthcare professional to use and understand.
03

Method & Evidence

AimTo map the use of wearable devices in quantifying knee outcomes following ACL injury or reconstruction, and to evaluate their clinical readiness and methodological quality.
MethodScoping Review
ProcedureA comprehensive search of multiple academic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus) was conducted to identify studies using wearable devices to assess knee function in populations with ACL injury or reconstruction. Extracted data included device types, assessment tasks, participant demographics, outcome measures, and validation methods. An adapted technology readiness level (TRL) mapping was applied to assess clinical readiness.
ContextRehabilitation and sports medicine, specifically focusing on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and reconstruction.

Variables

IVType of wearable device, assessment task, calibration procedure, validation method.
DVAccuracy, reliability, clinical readiness (TRL), quantification of knee outcomes.
CVPopulation (ACL injury/reconstruction), English language studies, specific databases searched.
04

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

  • +Comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases.
  • +Systematic extraction and analysis of data.
  • +Application of a TRL framework to assess readiness.

Limitations

The studies reviewed had varying levels of detail in their methodology, making direct comparisons difficult. The clinical readiness assessment is a snapshot and may not reflect the latest advancements.

Reliability & validity

The review found inconsistent reporting of criterion validation, suggesting that the validity of many wearable devices in this context is not yet firmly established. Reliability was not explicitly assessed across all studies but is implied to be a concern due to inconsistent calibration.

Think critically

Given the inconsistent validation, how can designers ensure their wearable devices provide meaningful and trustworthy data for clinical decision-making?

05

Design Principles

"Objective measurement of biomechanical function through wearable technology requires robust validation and seamless clinical integration to be effective."

For designers and engineers developing rehabilitation tools, this highlights a critical gap between technological capability and practical clinical integration. Focusing on robust validation and user-centred design principles is essential to ensure these devices provide reliable, actionable data that can genuinely improve patient outcomes and inform treatment strategies.

06

What This Means for Your Design

Wearable sensors can help measure how well knees are working after an ACL injury, but they aren't always tested or explained well enough for doctors to trust them in everyday practice.

How to use in your project

  • 1.Use this research to justify the need for rigorous testing and validation of your own design project, especially if it involves sensors or data collection.
07

Add to My Project

08

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

This research highlights the critical need for rigorous validation and clear reporting of calibration procedures when developing wearable sensing technologies for biomechanical assessment. The findings suggest that while devices like IMUs show promise for quantifying knee function post-ACL injury, their current methodological quality and lack of consistent validation hinder clinical integration, emphasizing the importance of robust testing and user-centred design in future development.

09

Source

Sensors

Wearable Devices for the Quantitative Assessment of Knee Joint Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury or Reconstruction: A Scoping Review

journal · 2025

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about wearable sensors can objectively assess knee function post-acl injury, but require rigorous validation for clinical adoption?
Designers and engineers should focus on developing wearable systems that are not only technologically advanced but also demonstrably reliable, validated against gold standards, and seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows to facilitate their adoption in post-ACL injury rehabilitation. Evidence: Sensors (2025).
Why does "Wearable sensors can objectively assess knee function post-ACL injury, but require rigorous validation for clinical adoption." matter for design?
For designers and engineers developing rehabilitation tools, this highlights a critical gap between technological capability and practical clinical integration. Focusing on robust validation and user-centred design principles is essential to ensure these devices provide reliable, actionable data that can genuinely improve patient outcomes and inform treatment strategies.
How can designers apply this research?
Designers and engineers should focus on developing wearable systems that are not only technologically advanced but also demonstrably reliable, validated against gold standards, and seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows to facilitate their adoption in post-ACL injury rehabilitation.
What were the main findings?
Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) are the most frequently used devices for kinematic assessment.. Standalone accelerometers can quantify pivot-shift features, and force-sensing insoles can capture bilateral loading.. Higher-precision devices like electromagnetic trackers and electrogoniometers are limited by workflow complexities.. Reporting of calibration procedures and criterion validation was inconsistent across studies.
What research method was used?
Scoping Review.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence strength is rated Moderate effect, based on a 2025 journal from Sensors.
What should I do differently in my next project?
When designing or evaluating wearable devices for rehabilitation, ensure that the design process includes comprehensive testing for accuracy, reliability, and usability in real-world clinical settings. Document calibration procedures meticulously and validate against established clinical assessment methods.
What are the limitations?
The review focused on studies published in English and did not include grey literature, potentially missing relevant research. The assessment of clinical readiness was based on an adapted TRL framework, which is a qualitative measure.