Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38035123›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in robotics and AI2023

Review and critique of current testing protocols for upper-limb prostheses: a call for standardization amidst rapid technological advancements.

Joshua R Siegel, Marcus A Battraw, Eden J Winslow, Michelle A James, Wilsaan M Joiner, Jonathon S Schofield

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Joshua R SiegelDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Marcus A BattrawDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Eden J WinslowDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Michelle A JamesShriners Hospital for Children, Northern California, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Wilsaan M JoinerDepartment of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Jonathon S SchofieldDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.

Funding

MUSCLE: MUsculoSkeletal Clinical Learning Experience Transdisciplinary Musculoskeletal Research Training ProgramT32AR079099 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI J. Kent Leach, Robert L. Randall · 2022 to 2026
$844k
NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR079099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive narrative review of physical task-based assessments used to evaluate the multi-grasp dexterity and functional impact of varying control systems in pediatric and adult upper-limb prostheses. Our search returned 1,442 research articles from online databases, of which 25 tests-selected for their scientific rigor, evaluation metrics, and psychometric properties-met our review criteria. We observed that despite significant advancements in the mechatronics of upper-limb prostheses, these 25 assessments are the only validated evaluation methods that have emerged since the first measure in 1948. This not only underscores the lack of a consistently updated, standardized assessment protocol for new innovations, but also reveals an unsettling trend: as technology outpaces standardized evaluation measures, developers will often support their novel devices through custom, study-specific tests. These boutique assessments can potentially introduce bias and jeopardize validity. Furthermore, our analysis revealed that current validated evaluation methods often overlook the influence of competing interests on test success. Clinical settings and research laboratories differ in their time constraints, access to specialized equipment, and testing objectives, all of which significantly influence assessment selection and consistent use. Therefore, we propose a dual testing approach to address the varied demands of these distinct environments. Additionally, we found that almost all existing task-based assessments lack an integrated mechanism for collecting patient feedback, which we assert is essential for a holistic evaluation of upper-limb prostheses. Our review underscores the pressing need for a standardized evaluation protocol capable of objectively assessing the rapidly advancing prosthetic technologies across all testing domains.

Indexed as

control system assessmentdexterity assessmentprosthesis evaluationrobotic prosthesis performanceupper-limb robotic prosthesesvalidated task-based assessments

Identifiers

PMID38035123
PMCPMC10684749

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.