ReviewFrontiers in robotics and AI2023
Review and critique of current testing protocols for upper-limb prostheses: a call for standardization amidst rapid technological advancements.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychosocial outcomes of medical specialty camps for children with physical disabilities.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2026Review
- Exploring the Perspectives of Different Professions on Task-Based Upper-Limb Prosthesis Assessment Techniques.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Outcomes and Preferences for Decision-Making for Upper Limb Prosthetic Care: The Patient Journey: A Scoping Literature Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Review
- Functional evaluation of a real-time EMG controlled prosthetic hand.Wearable technologies · 2025Article
- A performance evaluation of commercially available and 3D-printable prosthetic hands: a comparison using the anthropomorphic hand assessment protocol.BMC biomedical engineering · 2024Article
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.
Funding
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
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.