Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39621584›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Smartphone scanning is a reliable and accurate alternative to contemporary residual limb measurement techniques.

Sam Walters, Benjamin Metcalfe, Martin Twiste, Elena Seminati, Nicola Y Bailey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Sam WaltersDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0000-4444-5499
Benjamin MetcalfeBath Institute for the Augmented Human, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-8930
Martin TwisteSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
Elena SeminatiDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.
Nicola Y BaileyDepartment of Engineering, King's College London, London, Greater London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2711-5399

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring the volume and shape of residual limbs post-amputation is necessary to achieve optimal socket fit and determine overall limb health, yet contemporary clinical measurement techniques show high variance between measures. Three-dimensional scanning presents an opportunity for improved accuracy and reliability of residual limb measurements, however, three-dimensional scanners remain prohibitively expensive. A cost-effective alternative is the use of software that can utilise the photographs of modern smartphone cameras to create geometrically accurate scans. Whilst several studies have investigated the potential of privately developed photogrammetry algorithms for capturing residual limbs with clinical accuracy, none to the authors knowledge have explored commercially available software to do the same. Three applications were tested, namely Polycam, Luma, and Meshroom, to determine if they could produce clinically acceptable results. Scans of ten residual limbs were created using both smartphone technology and a reference structured-light scanner (Artec EVA), against which the validity and reliability of the resulting limb models were assessed using the Bland-Altman method and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, respectively. Polycam and Luma achieved both Pearson Coefficients and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients of 0.999, and Coefficients of Variation of 1.1% and 1.4%, respectively. Volume reliability coefficients were 58.3 ml and 70.0 ml respectively for Polycam and Luma, whereas Meshroom failed to meet any of the criteria for clinical suitability, with a repeatability coefficient of 790.3 ml. Both Polycam and Luma exhibit sufficient accuracy and reliability to be considered for clinical volume measurements.

Indexed as

SmartphoneAlgorithmsArtificial LimbsHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalPhotogrammetryReproducibility of ResultsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID39621584
PMCPMC11611122

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.