Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29474995›Full record

ReviewPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2018

Evaluation of Performance-Based Outcome Measures for the Upper Limb: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.

Sophie Wang, C Janice Hsu, Lauren Trent, Tiffany Ryan, Nathan T Kearns, Eugene F Civillico, Kimberly L Kontson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality of mobility measures among individuals with acquired brain injury: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2020
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sophie WangU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Science and Engineering Labs, Division of Biomedical Physics, Silver Spring, MD; and University of Maryland, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College Park, MD(∗).
C Janice HsuAdvanced Arm Dynamics, Redondo Beach, CA(†).
Lauren TrentAdvanced Arm Dynamics, Redondo Beach, CA(‡).
Tiffany RyanAdvanced Arm Dynamics, Redondo Beach, CA(§).
Nathan T KearnsAdvanced Arm Dynamics, Redondo Beach, CA; and University of North Texas, Department of Psychology, Denton, TX(¶).
Eugene F CivillicoDepartment of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD(#).
Kimberly L KontsonU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Science and Engineering Labs, Division of Biomedical Physics, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20993(∗∗). Electronic address: Kimberly.Kontson@fda.hhs.gov.
Advanced Dynamics (United States) · USCenter for Devices and Radiological Health · USDepartment of Health and Human Services · AU

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective performance-based outcome measures (OMs) have the potential to provide unbiased and reproducible assessments of limb function. However, very few of these performance-based OMs have been validated for upper limb (UL) prosthesis users. OMs validated in other clinical populations (eg, neurologic or musculoskeletal conditions) could be used to fill gaps in existing performance-based OMs for UL amputees. Additionally, a joint review might reveal consistent gaps across multiple clinical populations. Therefore, the objective of this review was to systematically characterize prominent measures used in both sets of clinical populations with regard to (1) location of task performance around the body, (2) possible grips employed, (3) bilateral versus unilateral task participation, and (4) details of scoring mechanisms. A systematic literature search was conducted in EMBASE, Medline, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health electronic databases for variations of the following terms: stroke, musculoskeletal dysfunction, amputation, prosthesis, upper limb, outcome, assessments. Articles were included if they described performance-based OMs developed for disabilities of the UL. Results show most tasks were performed with 1 hand in the space directly in front of the participant. The tip, tripod, and cylindrical grips were most commonly used for the specific tasks. Few measures assessed sensation and movement quality. Overall, several limitations in OMs were identified. The solution to these limitations may be to modify and validate existing measures originally developed for other clinical populations as first steps to more aptly measure prosthesis use while more complete assessments for UL prosthesis users are being developed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingArtificial LimbsAmputeesHumansMovementProsthesis DesignTask Performance and AnalysisUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID29474995
PMCPMC6206495
OpenAlexW2788662166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.