ArticlePloS one2024
A quantitative comparison between the mHand Adapt passive adjustable hand prosthesis and its predecessor, the Delft Self-Grasping Hand.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Delft Self-Grasping Hand (SGH) is an adjustable passive hand prosthesis that relies on wrist flexion to adjust the aperture of its grasp. The mechanism requires engagement of the contralateral hand meaning that hand is not available for other tasks. A commercialised version of this prosthesis, known as the mHand Adapt, includes a new release mechanism, which avoids the need to press a release button, and changes to the hand shape. This study is the first of its kind to compare two passive adjustable hand prostheses on the basis of quantitative scoring and contralateral hand involvement.
methods10 anatomically intact participants were asked to perform the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) with the mHand. Functionality and contralateral hand involvement were recorded and compared against SGH data originating from a previous trial involving a nearly identical testing regime.
resultsmHand exhibited higher functionality scores and less contralateral hand interaction time, especially during release-aiding interactions. Additionally, a wider range of tasks could be completed using the mHand than the SGH. DISCUSSION: Geometric changes make the mHand more capable of manipulating smaller objects. The altered locking mechanism means some tasks can be performed without any contralateral hand involvement and a higher number of tasks do not require contralateral involvement when releasing. Some participants struggled with achieving a good initial grip due to the inability to tighten the grasp once already formed.
conclusionThe mHand offers the user higher functionality scores with less contralateral hand interaction time and the ability to perform a wider range of tasks. However, there are some design trade-offs which may make it slightly harder to learn to use.
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.