ArticleScientific reports2020
Comparing preference of ankle-foot stiffness in below-knee amputees and prosthetists.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- An integrated multi-variable optimization approach to tailor ankle-foot orthosis stiffness to end-user needs.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- A Clinical Tuning Framework for Continuous Kinematic and Impedance Control of a Powered Knee-Ankle Prosthesis.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2025Article
- Variable-stiffness prosthesis improves biomechanics of walking across speeds compared to a passive device.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A review of evidence on mechanical properties of running specific prostheses and their relationship with running performance.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Review
- Sagittal and transverse ankle angle coupling can influence prosthetic socket transverse plane moments.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- Validation of a modified visual analogue scale to measure user-perceived comfort of a lower-limb exoskeleton.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A Bio-Inspired Arched Foot with Individual Toe Joints and Plantar Fascia.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Data-Driven Variable Impedance Control of a Powered Knee-Ankle Prosthesis for Adaptive Speed and Incline Walking.IEEE transactions on robotics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society · 2023Article
- A passive dorsiflexing ankle prosthesis to increase minimum foot clearance during swing.Wearable technologies · 2023Article
- Can humans perceive the metabolic benefit provided by augmentative exoskeletons?Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Understanding patient preference in prosthetic ankle stiffness.Journal of neuroengineering and 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When fitting prosthetic feet, prosthetists fuse information from their visual assessment of patient gait with the patient's communicated perceptions and preferences. In this study, we sought to simultaneously and independently assess patient and prosthetist preference for prosthetic foot stiffness using a custom variable-stiffness prosthesis. In the first part of the experiment, seven subjects with below-knee amputation walked on the variable-stiffness prosthetic foot set to a randomized stiffness, while several prosthetist subjects simultaneously observed their gait. After each trial, the amputee subjects and prosthetist subjects indicated the change to stiffness that they would prefer (increase or decrease). This paradigm allowed us to simultaneously measure amputee subject and prosthetist subject preferences, and provided a reliability index indicating the consistency of their preferences. In the second part of the experiment, amputee subjects were instructed to communicate verbally with one prosthetist subject to arrive at a mutually preferred stiffness. On average, prosthetist subjects preferred a 26% higher stiffness than amputee subjects (p < 0.001), though this depended on the amputee subject (p < 0.001). Prosthetist subjects were also considerably less consistent than amputee subjects in their preferences (CV of 5.6% for amputee subjects, CV of 23% for prosthetist subjects; p = 0.014). Mutual preference seemed to be dictated by the specific patient-prosthetist dynamic, and no clear trends emerged.
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.