Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35536854›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Prosthetic forefoot and heel stiffness across consecutive foot stiffness categories and sizes.

Anne T Turner, Elizabeth G Halsne, Joshua M Caputo, Carl S Curran, Andrew H Hansen, Brian J Hafner, David C Morgenroth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anne T TurnerVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Elizabeth G HalsneVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0640-1051
Joshua M CaputoHuman Motion Technologies LLC d/b/a Humotech, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Carl S CurranHuman Motion Technologies LLC d/b/a Humotech, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Andrew H HansenMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Brian J HafnerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6175-1869
David C MorgenrothVA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and Mobility (CLiMB), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
University of Washington · USUniversity of Minnesota · USWashington State University Spokane · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prosthetic foot stiffness plays a key role in the functional mobility of lower limb prosthesis users. However, limited objective data exists to guide selection of the optimal prosthetic foot stiffness category for a given individual. Clinicians often must rely solely on manufacturer recommendations, which are typically based on the intended user's weight and general activity level. Availability of comparable forefoot and heel stiffness data would allow for a better understanding of differences between different commercial prosthetic feet, and also between feet of different stiffness categories and foot sizes. Therefore, this study compared forefoot and heel linear stiffness properties across manufacturer-designated stiffness categories and foot sizes. Mechanical testing was completed for five types of commercial prosthetic feet across a range of stiffness categories and three foot-sizes. Data were collected for 56 prosthetic feet, in total. Testing at two discrete angles was conducted to isolate loading of the heel and forefoot components, respectively. Each prosthetic foot was loaded for six cycles while force and displacement data were collected. Forefoot and heel measured stiffness were both significantly associated with stiffness category (p = .001). There was no evidence that the relationships between stiffness category and measured stiffness differed by foot size (stiffness category by size interaction p = .80). However, there were inconsistencies between the expected and measured stiffness changes across stiffness categories (i.e., magnitude of stiffness changes varied substantially between consecutive stiffness categories of the same feet). While statistical results support that, on average, measured stiffness is positively correlated with stiffness category, force-displacement data suggest substantial variation in measured stiffness across consecutive categories. Published objective mechanical property data for commercial prosthetic feet would likely therefore be helpful to clinicians during prescription.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsGaitBiomechanical PhenomenaFootProsthesis Design

Identifiers

PMID35536854
PMCPMC9089881
OpenAlexW4229440616

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.