Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28273329›Full record

Trial reportJournal of rehabilitation research and development2016

Psychometric evaluation of self-report outcome measures for prosthetic applications.

Brian J Hafner, Sara J Morgan, Robert L Askew, Rana Salem

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of rehabilitation research and development, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing 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.

NCT03722797 terminatednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Metabolic Cost and Physical Activity in Sedentary Adults With a Unilateral Transtibial Amputation as Compared to Controls

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of DelawareRan2017 to 2022Enrolled3ConditionsAmputeesArmsMetabolic Cost Testing Procedures
NCT04239222 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Prospective, Feasibility Study to Evaluate Performance, Patient Benefits, and Acceptance of a New Energy Storage and Return Prosthetic Foot

TypeinterventionalSponsorOtto Bock Healthcare Products GmbHRan2020 to 2022Enrolled27ConditionsLower Limb Amputation Below Knee (Injury), Lower Limb Amputation Above Knee (Injury), Lower Limb Amputation KneeArmsRevo-M, Taleo, Proflex XC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Brian J HafnerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Sara J MorganDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Robert L AskewDepartment of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL.
Rana SalemDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Funding

A Client-Based Outcome System for Individuals with Lower Limb AmputationR01HD065340 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HAFNER, BRIAN J · 2014 to 2022
$2.7M
A Client-Based Outcome System for Individuals with Lower Limb AmputationU01HD065340 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HAFNER, BRIAN J · 2010 to 2013
$2.0M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD065340NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD065340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Documentation of clinical outcomes is increasingly expected in delivery of prosthetic services and devices. However, many outcome measures suitable for use in clinical care and research have not been psychometrically tested with prosthesis users. The aim of this study was to determine test-retest reliability, mode-of-administration (MoA) equivalence, standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC) of standardized, self-report instruments that assess constructs of importance to people with lower limb loss. Prosthesis users (n = 201) were randomly assigned to groups based on MoA (i.e., paper, electronic, or mixed-mode). Participants completed two surveys 2 to 3 d apart. Instruments included the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire-Mobility Subscale, Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, Quality of Life in Neurological Conditions-Applied Cognition/General Concerns, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Profile, and Socket Comfort Score. Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated all instruments are appropriate for group-level comparisons and select instruments are suitable for individual-level applications. Several instruments showed evidence of possible floor and ceiling effects. All were equivalent across MoAs. SEM and MDC were quantified to facilitate interpretation of outcomes and change scores. These results can enhance clinicians' and researchers' ability to select, apply, and interpret scores from instruments administered to prosthesis users.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeReproducibility of Resultsamputeesartificial limbshealth surveysoutcome assessment (health care)outcome measuresoutcomes researchprosthesisquestionnairesrehabilitationreproducibility of results

Identifiers

PMID28273329
PMCPMC5345485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.