Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35733615›Full record

ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering

OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes.

Taavy A Miller, James H Campbell, Dwiesha L England, Phillip M Stevens, Shane R Wurdeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

5 authors.

Taavy A Miller1Hanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7117-6124
James H Campbell1Hanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, TX, USA.
Dwiesha L England1Hanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, TX, USA.
Phillip M Stevens1Hanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, TX, USA.
Shane R Wurdeman1Hanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Recently, many prosthetic devices were subjected to reimbursement coding review. Several prosthetic feet that were historically coded with the shock-attenuating function were recoded. The purpose of this analysis was to compare patient-reported functional mobility across a range of prosthetic feet using real-world clinical outcomes data. Methods: A retrospective, observational review. A univariate generalized linear model was used to assess mobility across foot categories and between different prosthetic feet coded as L5987 or L5981. Results: The final sample analyzed comprised of 526 individuals and four mutually exclusive categories of feet examined across a total of 10 different prosthetic foot types. The comparison of prosthetic foot categories were significantly different from the control category (i.e. historically L5981). Conclusions: The current data suggest the development of some prosthetic foot designs using advanced materials and geometric designs can provide comparable functional benefits as those with distinct shock absorbing mechanical features. Emphasizing functional performance over visible features may be a pathway towards higher performance for the end user.

Indexed as

amputeesmobilityoutcomesprosthesis foot typeprosthetic feet

Identifiers

PMID35733615
PMCPMC9208046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.