ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Mobility analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT 5): Impact of five common prosthetic ankle-foot categories for individuals with diabetic/dysvascular amputation.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes following major dysvascular lower limb amputation: an updated systematic review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Patient reported outcomes improve following lower limb prosthesis and socket and replacement.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Article
- The Effect of Prosthetic Limb Sophistication and Amputation Level on Self-reported Mobility and Satisfaction With Mobility.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineeringArticle
- Microprocessor feet improve prosthetic mobility and physical function relative to non-microprocessor feet.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiabetes and vascular disease represent the most common etiologies for lower limb amputations. In lower limb loss rehabilitation, the prosthetic ankle-foot mechanism is the most common major component needed to restore function. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of five common prosthetic ankle-foot mechanisms on functional mobility in a large sample of individuals with amputation due to diabetes/dysvascular disease.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the Prosthetic Limb Users' Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M®) captured in the patient care setting. A total of 738 individuals were included and subsequently subdivided into five groups based on the ankle-foot mechanism of their current prosthesis. Groups were compared using a general linear univariate model with age, body mass index, comorbid health status, time since amputation, and amputation level entered as covariates.
resultsThe microprocessor ankle-foot group had the highest mobility (F
conclusionThese results demonstrate that the selection of different prosthetic ankle-foot technology directly impacts functional mobility for the patient with an amputation due to diabetes and/or vascular disease.
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.