ArticleJournal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO2019
Prosthetists' perceptions of information obtained from a lower limb prosthesis monitoring system: a pilot study.
Article in Journal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2020Pooled it
- Exploring the correlation between gait speed and balance in limb prosthesis users: A pilot study.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2025Article
- A novel portable sensor to monitor bodily positions and activities in transtibial prosthesis users.Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2022Article
- Reported Outcome Measures in Studies of Real-World Ambulation in People with a Lower Limb Amputation: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionProsthetists have limited knowledge of their patients' use of a prosthesis outside of the clinical environment. Prosthesis-mounted monitors can be used to directly measure patients' prosthesis use and activity. Prosthetists' opinions regarding potential clinical applications for sensor-based information may inform further development of this technology. A pilot study was conducted to assess prosthetists' perceptions of prosthesis use and activity information obtained by a monitoring system. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree local prosthetists were recruited to participate in the study. One patient with transtibial amputation from each prosthetist volunteered to wear limb presence and activity monitors for two weeks. Collected data were used to determine prosthesis use and activity. Each prosthetist completed a survey, examined clinical reports of their patient's prosthesis use and activity, and participated in a semi-structured interview. Survey results and interview transcripts were analyzed to identify and compare prosthetists' perceptions.
resultsProsthesis use and activity varied among patients. Prosthetists over- and under-estimated patient activity, relative to measurements recorded by the monitors. All three prosthetists selected multiple clinical applications for the prosthesis use and activity information in the survey, and several additional applications were suggested during the interviews. When presented with multiple report formats, prosthetists found features of each to be clinically useful.
conclusionsProsthesis-mounted monitors may provide prosthetists with a better understanding of their patients' prosthesis use and activity. Information provided by the monitoring system may inform clinical decisions and promote evidence-based practices.
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.