ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Effects of conventional versus 3D-printed cosmetic covers on user satisfaction and psychosocial well-being in lower limb prostheses users: A randomised crossover trial.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of prescribing a traditional foam cosmetic cover versus a more recently developed 3D printed cosmetic cover on the satisfaction and psychosocial wellbeing of prosthesis users. Methods: Transtibial and transfemoral prosthesis users were randomly assigned into two groups. One group was fitted with a foam cosmesis with a nylon stocking while the other received a 3D printed cosmetic cover. Cosmeses were worn for 12 weeks before being switched to the alternate design. Outcomes related to satisfaction and psychosocial wellbeing (ABIS-R, TAPES, QUEST) were collected on 3 occasions. Linear mixed effects models assessed for differences between the cosmetic covers. Results: 10 participants completed all outcome measures on 3 occasions. Significant differences in favour of the 3D printed cosmesis were observed for TAPES general psychosocial adjustment ( Conclusion: Results suggest that cosmetic cover design can significantly affect prosthesis users' psychosocial wellbeing and satisfaction with aesthetic appearance. Variance between participants is high indicating diverse preferences.
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.