Trial reportPloS one2018
Laboratory- and community-based health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation using crossover and energy-storing prosthetic feet: A randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. 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 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Endurance, Energy Expenditure, Perceived Function, and Satisfaction of Persons With Transtibial Limb Loss Using a Running-Specific Prosthesis Modified for Walking
Prospective, Feasibility Study to Evaluate Performance, Patient Benefits, and Acceptance of a New 1C70 Energy Storage and Return Prosthetic Foot
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2020Pooled it
- Prosthesis satisfaction in lower limb amputees: A systematic review of associated factors and questionnaires.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Effects of a Torsion-Adaptive Energy-Storing-and-Return Prosthetic Foot on Balance Control in Individuals with Transtibial Amputation: A Pilot Pre-Post Motion Analysis Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Future Directions in Prosthetic Component Research and Clinical Prescription: A Precision Rehabilitation and Patient-Centered Care Approach.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Reported Outcome Measures in Studies of Real-World Ambulation in People with a Lower Limb Amputation: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Use of Physical Activity Outcomes in Rehabilitation Interventions for Lower Limb Amputees: a Systematic Review.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2020Review
- Mobility analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT 5): Impact of five common prosthetic ankle-foot categories for individuals with diabetic/dysvascular amputation.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary prosthetic feet are generally optimized for either daily or high-level activities. Prosthesis users, therefore, often require multiple prostheses to participate in activities that span a range of mobility. Crossover feet (XF) are designed to increase the range of activities that can be performed with a single prosthesis. However, little evidence exists to guide clinical prescription of XF relative to traditional energy storing feet (ESF). The objective of this study was to assess the effects of XF and ESF on health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation. A randomized crossover study was conducted to assess changes in laboratory-based (endurance, perceived exertion, walking performance) and community-based (step activity and self-reported mobility, fatigue, balance confidence, activity restrictions, and satisfaction) outcomes. Twenty-seven participants were fit with XF and ESF prostheses with standardized sockets, interfaces, and suspensions. Participants were not blinded to the intervention, and wore each prosthesis for one month while their steps were counted with an activity monitor. After each accommodation period, participants returned for data collection. Endurance and perceived exertion were measured with the Six-Minute Walk Test and Borg-CR100, respectively. Walking performance was measured using an electronic walkway. Self-reported mobility, fatigue, balance confidence, activity restrictions, and satisfaction were measured with survey instruments. Participants also reported foot preferences upon conclusion of the study. Differences between feet were assessed with a crossover analysis. While using XF, users experienced improvements in most community-based outcomes, including mobility (p = .001), fatigue (p = .001), balance confidence (p = .005), activity restrictions (p = .002), and functional satisfaction (p < .001). Participants also exhibited longer sound side steps in XF compared to ESF (p < .001). Most participants (89%) reported an overall preference for XF; others (11%) reported no preference. Results indicate that XF may be a promising alternative to ESF for people with transtibial amputation who engage in a range of mobility activities.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02440711.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.