Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17054250›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Prosthetic rehabilitation for older dysvascular people following a unilateral transfemoral amputation.

J C O Cumming, S Barr, T E Howe

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. What Does the Cochrane Collaboration Say about Rehabilitation of Walking?Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2010
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J C O CummingUniversity of Teesside, Teesside Centre for Rehabilitation Sciences, The James Cook University Hospital, Marton Road, Middlesbrough, UK. jane.cumming@stees.nhs.uk
S Barr
T E Howe
Teesside University · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZB/4/609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDysvascularity accounts for 75% of all lower limb amputations in the UK. Around 37% of these are at transfemoral level (mid-thigh), with the majority of people being over the age of 60 and having existing co-morbidities. A significant number of these amputees will be prescribed a lower limb prosthesis for walking. However, many amputees do not achieve a high level of function following prosthetic rehabilitation.

objectivesWe aimed to identify and summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating rehabilitation interventions for prosthetic ambulation following unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people, whether community dwelling or institutionalised. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Specialised Register (July 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2006), EMBASE (1980 to February 2006), CINAHL (1982 to December 2005), AMED (1985 to December 2005), several more specialised databases and reference lists of articles. We also searched the UK National Research Register (Issue 2, 2005) for ongoing trials and contacted experts in the field. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing prosthetic rehabilitation interventions following a unilateral transfemoral or transgenicular amputation in older (aged 60 years or above) dysvascular people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently scanned the search results for potentially eligible studies and then, on obtaining full reports of these, selected studies for inclusion and exclusion. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. No data pooling was possible. MAIN

resultsOf 38 full reports obtained for consideration, one trial was included and four were excluded. The sole included trial was a short-term crossover randomised trial which tested the effects of adding three seemingly identical prosthetic weights (150 g versus 770 g versus 1625 g) to the prostheses of 10 participants with unilateral dysvascular transfemoral amputation. Eight participants were over 60 years of age. The trial found that four participants preferred the lightest weight (150 g), five preferred the middle weight (770 g) and one preferred the addition of the heaviest weight (1625 g). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform the choice of prosthetic rehabilitation, including the optimum weight of prosthesis, after unilateral transfemoral amputation in older dysvascular people. A programme of research, including randomised controlled trials to examine key interventions, is urgently required in this area.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsAgedAmputation, SurgicalFemurHumansLegMiddle AgedPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID17054250
OpenAlexW4231772468

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.