Trial reportPM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2025
The effects of microprocessor prosthetic knee use in early rehabilitation: A pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of microprocessor prosthetic knee use in early rehabilitation: A pilot randomized controlled trial.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Innovative approach of nonlinear controllers design for prosthetic knee performance.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2025Article
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
backgroundMicroprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees (MPKs) improve safety, stability, and mobility for people with transfemoral amputation. Despite these benefits, MPKs are often not used for people in early rehabilitation.
objectiveTo assess the feasibility of a study that compares MPKs and nonmicroprocessor knees (NMPKs) for people with recent transfemoral amputation and report on health outcomes after 3 months of use. Investigators hypothesized that MPK users would have better outcomes than NMPK users.
designPilot randomized controlled study.
settingInstitutional laboratory.
participantsAdults with recent unilateral transfemoral amputation, deemed ready for their first prosthesis, and weighed <125 kg. Eighteen participants enrolled; 15 completed the study.
interventionsParticipants were randomized to use a MPK or NMPK in their first prosthesis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, retention, and missing data. Health outcome measures included performance-based and self-reported measures of mobility, participation, step activity, and falls.
resultsEighteen of 24 planned participants enrolled in the study. Fifteen participants received a study prosthesis and completed the 3-month trial (MPK: n = 9; NMPK: n = 6). Participants with an MPK had significantly higher Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (p = .01, Hedges' g: 1.70), Activity-specific Balance Confidence (p = .01, Hedges' g: 1.75), and Return to Normal Living Index (p = .05, Hedges' g: 0.54) scores compared to patients with NMPK. No other outcomes significantly differed between groups; effect sizes (0.47-1.75) across mobility outcomes indicated better outcomes in the MPK group.
conclusionsEnrollment goals were limited by the COVID-19 pandemic, but all 15 participants who received a study prosthesis finished the 3-month pilot study. The MPK group generally had better 3-month outcomes than the NMPK group, but few statistically significant differences were found due to the small sample size and heterogeneity within groups. Results from this pilot study can inform and power future studies that compare MPKs and NMPKs in early rehabilitation.
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.