ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024
A review of evidence on mechanical properties of running specific prostheses and their relationship with running performance.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Technological Doping in Sport: Performance Enhancement, Health, Ethics, and Regulatory Governance: A Narrative Synthesis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although mechanical properties of running specific prostheses (RSPs) can affect running performance, manufacturers do not consistently report them. This study aimed to review existing literature on RSP mechanical and structural properties and their relationship with running performance. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using keywords related to mechanical properties of RSPs and running performance. Search terms included stiffness and hysteresis, as well as performance outcomes including metabolic cost and running speed. Non-peer-reviewed and non-English publications were excluded. Results: Twenty articles were included in the review. Sixteen studies used a material testing machine to measure RSP material properties, and four articles used other techniques including 2D/3D video capture and force platforms. Both measurement techniques and reporting of outcomes were inconsistent, which limits the ability to draw broad conclusions. Additionally, several studies did not report the numerical data for material properties despite measuring them. Relatively few articles measured both material properties and running performance and assessed correlations. Conclusion: Several articles connected prosthesis properties to running performance. However, inconsistent measurement and reporting of mechanical properties, along with the multifactorial nature of the athlete-prosthesis system, limit the ability to draw broad conclusions regarding the relationship between material and structural properties and athlete performance. Current evidence may be useful for clinicians seeking ways to optimize RSP stiffness in a case-by-case basis; however, clinicians would benefit from more consistent and systematic comparisons of the attributes of different RSPs and their role in performance.
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.