Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34246299›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2021

Cycling in people with a lower limb amputation.

Jutamanee Poonsiri, Rienk Dekker, Pieter U Dijkstra, Juha M Hijmans, Jan H B Geertzen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  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.

Jutamanee PoonsiriDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.poonsiri@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4957-0990
Rienk DekkerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Pieter U DijkstraDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Juha M HijmansDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jan H B GeertzenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate cycling participation and identify barriers and facilitators related to cycling participation in people with a lower limb amputation (LLA) in the Netherlands.

methodsA questionnaire was sent to adults with a LLA between March and August 2019 to obtain information regarding prosthesis, individual's characteristics, amputation, cycling barriers and facilitators, and prosthetic satisfaction. The questionnaires were distributed via 8 orthopedic workshops, post and were given directly. To find cycling predictors, variables associated with cycling (p < 0.1) were entered into a logistic regression analysis. Non-significant variables were removed manually.

resultsParticipants (n = 207, 71% males) had a mean age of 62.0 ± 13.0 years. The most frequent level of amputation was transtibial (42%), and trauma was the most frequent cause of amputation (43%). After the LLA, 141 participants (68%) cycled for recreation (80%), physical fitness (74%), and transport (50%). In the past six months, cyclists cycled for recreation (79%) and transport (66%). Most cycled less than once a day. Recreational cyclists cycled alone (75%) for a median duration of 45 min or 14 km per ride. Cyclists with a transportation purpose usually cycled to go shopping (80%) or to visit friends (68%), with a median duration of 20 min or five kilometers per ride. Cyclists reported more facilitators (median (IQR) = 5 (3, 7) than non-cyclists 0 (0, 3). The majority of cyclists reported a positive attitude toward cycling (89%) and cycled because of health benefits (81%). A dynamic foot (odds ratio: 5.2, 95% CI 2.0, 13.3) and a higher number of facilitators (odds ratio: 1.3, 95% CI 1.2, 1.5) positively predicted cycling, whereas the presence of other underlying diseases (odds ratio: 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.9) negatively predicted cycling (R

conclusionIn the Netherlands, the majority of adults cycled after a LLA, mainly for recreational purposes. A dynamic foot, a higher number of facilitators, and no other underlying diseases increases the likelihood of cycling after a LLA. The results suggest that personal motivation and a higher mobility level could be the key to increasing cycling participation. Future research should determine the association between motivation, mobility levels, and cycling with a LLA.

Indexed as

AmputeesBarriersCyclingFacilitatorsProsthesesRecreationSportTransport

Identifiers

PMID34246299
PMCPMC8272388

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.