Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33069257›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

Physiological and biomechanical comparison of overground, treadmill, and ergometer handrim wheelchair propulsion in able-bodied subjects under standardized conditions.

Rick de Klerk, Vera Velhorst, Dirkjan H E J Veeger, Lucas H V van der Woude, Riemer J K Vegter

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

5 authors.

Rick de KlerkCentre for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. r.de.klerk@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-2745-1963
Vera VelhorstCentre for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Dirkjan H E J VeegerMechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Postbus 5, 2600 AA, Delft, The Netherlands.
Lucas H V van der WoudeCentre for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Riemer J K VegterCentre for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHandrim wheelchair propulsion is often assessed in the laboratory on treadmills (TM) or ergometers (WE), under the assumption that they relate to regular overground (OG) propulsion. However, little is known about the agreement of data obtained from TM, WE, and OG propulsion under standardized conditions. The current study aimed to standardize velocity and power output among these three modalities to consequently compare obtained physiological and biomechanical outcome parameters.

methodsSeventeen able-bodied participants performed two submaximal practice sessions before taking part in a measurement session consisting of 3 × 4 min of submaximal wheelchair propulsion in each of the different modalities. Power output and speed for TM and WE propulsion were matched with OG propulsion, making them (mechanically) as equal as possible. Physiological data and propulsion kinetics were recorded with a spirometer and a 3D measurement wheel, respectively.

resultsAgreement among conditions was moderate to good for most outcome variables. However, heart rate was significantly higher in OG propulsion than in the TM condition. Push time and contact angle were smaller and fraction of effective force was higher on the WE when compared to OG/TM propulsion. Participants used a larger cycle time and more negative work per cycle in the OG condition. A continuous analysis using statistical parametric mapping showed a lower torque profile in the start of the push phase for TM propulsion versus OG/WE propulsion. Total force was higher during the start of the push phase for the OG conditions when compared to TM/WE propulsion.

conclusionsPhysiological and biomechanical outcomes in general are similar, but possible differences between modalities exist, even after controlling for power output using conventional techniques. Further efforts towards increasing the ecological validity of lab-based equipment is advised and the possible impact of these differences -if at all- in (clinical) practice should be evaluated.

Indexed as

WheelchairsBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHealthy VolunteersHeart RateHumansMalePhysical ExertionYoung AdultBiomechanicsDynamometryGross mechanical efficiencyPower output

Identifiers

PMID33069257
PMCPMC7568417

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.