ArticlePloS one2023
What do users and their aiding professionals want from future devices in upper limb prosthetics? A focus group study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Redefining Prosthetic Needs: Insights from Individuals with Upper Limb Loss-A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial neural networks for HD-sEMG-based hand position estimation: addressing inter- and intra-subject variability.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh rejection rates of upper limb prosthetics indicate that current prosthetic devices only partially meet user demands. This study therefore investigated the benefits and challenges with current prostheses, associated services and potential areas for improvement from the perspective of upper limb prosthesis users and various professionals working in the field of upper limb and hand prosthetics. METHODS AND
findingsSeven different focus group discussions were conducted with 32 participants. Participants were grouped by prosthesis type, if they were prosthesis users, or professionals. All focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim, and a summarizing content analysis was performed. Three main topic areas to be addressed emerged from the interviews: 1. a properly functioning prosthesis, 2. the infrastructure, and 3. users' psychological and physical prerequisites. The interaction between a well-functioning prosthesis and a well-developed infrastructure was shown to be important for successful use.
conclusionsOur study raises many of the same issues that have been reported in previous qualitative studies, dating back over several decades. This study underlines the need to include users and professionals in the future development of prosthetic devices.
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.