ArticlePloS one2019
Cycling of people with a lower limb amputation in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Narrative Review of Prosthesis Design Decision Making After Lower-Limb Amputation for Developing Shared Decision-Making Resources.Current physical medicine and rehabilitation reports · 2024Article
- Overcoming barriers to cycling for knee disarticulation and transfemoral prosthesis users: A pilot study in The Netherlands.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2024Article
- Cycling in people with a lower limb amputation.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate cycling participation and barriers, and facilitators in adults with a lower limb amputation in Thailand.
methodQuestionnaires were given to 424 adults with uni/bilateral lower limb amputation from midfoot to hip disarticulation level at five public hospitals in Bangkok and prosthetic mobile units in Thailand. Participant characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Variables associated with cycling (p<0.1) were entered in a logistic regression model.
resultsParticipants who cycled (46.7%, N = 197), mostly used their walking prostheses (91.9%, n = 188). Of cyclists, 92.4% had cycled before the amputation. Cyclists started cycling after the amputation by themselves (86.7%) mostly in order to increase/maintain health (67.0%). Most cyclists cycled on quiet roads. The most frequent destination was shops/market (64.1%). More facilitators were reported than barriers. Most reported barriers were related to health problems and negative attitudes toward cycling. Most reported facilitators were related to perceived health benefits and positive attitude toward cycling. The likelihood of cycling after the amputation increased in people who cycled before the amputation, were amputated lower than the knee, used a prosthetic foot with axis/axes, were amputated due to trauma, had income higher than 415 euro/month, and who reported a higher numbers of facilitators.
conclusionAfter a lower limb amputation, nearly half of people cycled. People with a below knee amputation due to trauma with prior cycling experience and higher income tended to cycle after the amputation. People who perceived more facilitators were more likely to cycle. Although cyclists could use a walking prosthesis to cycle, a prosthetic foot with a greater range of motion than the SACH increased the cycling likelihood.
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.