Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33737440›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2021

STEPFORWARD study: a randomised controlled feasibility trial of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot for older patients with vascular-related amputations.

Natalie Vanicek, Elizabeth Coleman, Judith Watson, Kerry Bell, Catriona McDaid, Cleveland Barnett, Martin Twiste, Fergus Jepson, Abayomi Salawu, Dennis Harrison and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 57% of its field
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Natalie VanicekDepartment of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull, Hull, UK n.vanicek@hull.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9602-3172
Elizabeth ColemanYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Judith WatsonYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0694-3854
Kerry BellYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Catriona McDaidYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3751-7260
Cleveland BarnettSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
Martin TwisteSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, UK.
Fergus JepsonSpecialist Mobility Rehabilitation Centre, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Abayomi SalawuDisability Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2496-0826
Dennis HarrisonPublic Involvement Member, UK, UK.
Natasha MitchellYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Department of Medical Sciences · BYUniversity of Hull · GBLancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNottingham Trent University · GBUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot compared with a standard prosthetic ankle-foot.

designMulticentre parallel group feasibility RCT.

settingFive prosthetics centres in England recruiting from July 2018 to August 2019.

participantsAdults aged ≥50 years with a vascular-related or non-traumatic transtibial amputation for 1 year or longer, categorised as having 'limited community mobility' and using a non-self-aligning ankle-foot.

interventionParticipants were randomised into one of two groups for 12 weeks: self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot or existing non-self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot. OUTCOMES: Feasibility measures: recruitment, consent and retention rates; and completeness of questionnaire and clinical assessment datasets across multiple time points. Feasibility of collecting daily activity data with wearable technology and health resource use data with a bespoke questionnaire.

resultsFifty-five participants were randomised (61% of the target 90 participants): n=27 self-aligning ankle-foot group, n=28 non-self-aligning ankle-foot group. Fifty-one participants were included in the final analysis (71% of the target number of participants). The consent rate and retention at final follow-up were 86% and 93%, respectively. The average recruitment rate was 1.25 participants/site/month (95% CI 0.39 to 2.1). Completeness of questionnaires ranged from 89%-94%, and clinical assessments were 92%-95%, including the activity monitor data. The average completion rates for the EQ-5D-5L and bespoke resource use questionnaire were 93% and 63%, respectively.

conclusionsThis feasibility trial recruited and retained participants who were categorised as having 'limited community mobility' following a transtibial amputation. The high retention rate of 93% indicated the trial was acceptable to participants and feasible to deliver as a full-scale RCT. The findings support a future, fully powered evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot compared with a standard non-self-aligning version with some adjustments to the trial design and delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15043643.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalAnkleActivities of Daily LivingAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFeasibility StudiesHumansMiddle Agedclinical trialsfoot & anklemusculoskeletal disordersrehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID33737440
PMCPMC7978257
OpenAlexW3139285070

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.