SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Methods to assess lower limb prosthetic adaptation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lower-limb prosthetic mechanisms: recent progress, control innovations and barriers to real-world adoption.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Review
- Preliminary development and validation of a textile-based pressure-sensing system for lower-limb prosthetic sockets.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- Wearable technologies for assisted mobility in the real world.Nature communications · 2025Review
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
backgroundLower limb amputation is a disabling condition with serious psychological, physical, and functional consequences. The adaptation of a prosthetic device can either mitigate or exacerbate these effects. Although many individuals receive lower limb prostheses, rejection rates remain high. Furthermore, while numerous objective and quantitative methods are available to assess the interface between the residual limb and the prosthetic socket, as well as the device performance, prosthetic fitting largely relies on prosthetists' observation and expertise. Accordingly, this review describes the most commonly employed methods for evaluating prosthetic fitting, emphasizing frequently used combinations of tools, devices, procedures, and tests for characterizing residual limbs and clinical outcomes, which indirectly contribute to prosthetic fitting evaluation. MAIN BODY: In July 2023, searches were conducted across the Taylor & Francis, SpringerLink, Sage, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases, focusing on research papers, case reports, and technical briefs published between 2011 and 2023. Studies were selected by four reviewers, and any discrepancies were resolved through group discussions. The Rayyan tool was employed to ensure that the retrieved publications evaluated residual limb variables involved in prosthetic fitting. The predominant methods for assessing lower-limb prosthetic fitting include mobility evaluation, gait analysis, measurement of physical variables, and stability assessment. Functional tests and self-report questionnaires, which do not require specialized equipment or great expertise, are the most widely utilized techniques.
conclusionsThe results demonstrate that, within clinical practice, mobility evaluation is the primary predictor of prosthetic fitting. Since methodologies for measuring more specific variables are often restricted to laboratory settings, future studies should analyze factors that could enable their implementation in clinical contexts.
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.