ArticleScientific reports2021
Development of a theoretical model for upright postural control in lower limb prosthesis users.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods used to assess quiet standing in unilateral prosthesis users often assume validity of an inverted pendulum model despite this being shown as invalid in some instances. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the validity of a proposed unilaterally-constrained pin-controller model in explaining postural control in unilateral prosthesis users. Prosthesis users were contrasted against the theoretical model as were able-bodied controls that stood on a platform which unilaterally constrained movement of the CoP. All participants completed bouts of quiet standing with eyes open, eyes closed and with feedback on inter-limb weight bearing asymmetry. Correlation coefficients were used to infer inverted pendulum behavior in both the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions and were derived from both kinematic (body attached markers) and kinetic (centre of pressure) experimental data. Larger, negative correlation coefficients reflected better model adherence, whilst low or no correlation reflected poorer model adherence. Inverted pendulum behavior derived from kinematic data, indicated coefficients of high magnitude in both mediolateral (all cases range 0.71-0.78) and anteroposterior (0.88-0.91) directions, irrespective of groups. Inverted pendulum behavior derived from kinetic data in the anteroposterior direction indicated validity of the model with large negative coefficients associated with the unconstrained/intact limbs (prosthesis users: - 0.45 to - 0.65, control group: - 0.43 to - 0.72), small coefficients in constrained/prosthetic limbs (prosthesis users: - 0.02 to 0.07, control group: 0.13-0.26) and large negative coefficients in combined conditions (prosthesis users: - 0.36 to - 0.56, control group: - 0.71 to - 0.82). For the mediolateral direction, coefficients were negligible for individual limbs (0.03-0.17) and moderate to large negative correlations, irrespective of group (- 0.31 to - 0.73). Data suggested both prosthesis users' and able-bodied individuals' postural control conforms well to that predicted by a unilaterally-constrained pin-controller model, which has implications for the fundamental control of posture in transtibial prosthesis users.
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.