Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29750117›Full record

ArticleHealthcare technology letters2018

Effect of technique and transfer board use on the performance of wheelchair transfers.

Giulia Barbareschi, Tsu-Jui Cheng, Catherine Holloway

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare technology letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Giulia BarbareschiUniversity College London Interaction Centre, University College London, London WC1E 6EA, UK.
Tsu-Jui ChengCentre for Health Sciences Research, University of Salford, Salford M6 6PU, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2775-6396
Catherine HollowayUniversity College London Interaction Centre, University College London, London WC1E 6EA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transferring to and from the wheelchair seat is a necessary skill for many wheelchair users who wish to be independent of their everyday life. The performance of wheelchair transfers has been associated with the risk of falling and developing upper limb injuries. Both present a risk to the independence of the individual. Previous studies on wheelchair transfers have focused mainly on the analysis of sitting transfers performed by individuals with spinal cord injury, which only represent a small portion of the wider wheelchair users' population. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of different transferring techniques (sitting, standing) and transfer board use on the ground reaction forces under the hands during transfer performance and transfer quality measured using the transfer assessment instrument (TAI). Sitting transfers displayed generally higher peak and mean reaction forces underneath both leading and trailing hands compared with the other techniques, but the difference was only significant between sitting and standing transfers. Standing transfers had significantly lower TAI scores compared with sitting transfer, potentially indicating a decreased level of safety associated with their performance. Transfer boards were only partially effective in reducing the weight born by the upper limbs and they caused only a minor reduction in the overall TAI score in comparison to sitting transfers.

Indexed as

biomechanicsfallingground reaction forceshandicapped aidsinjuriesmean reaction forcesmedical signal processingsittingspinal cord injurystandingTAItransfer assessment instrumenttransfer boardtransfer performancetransfer qualityupper limb injurieswheelchair seatwheelchair transfers

Identifiers

PMID29750117
PMCPMC5933366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.