Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40677172›Full record

SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2025

Comparison of Quality of Life in Transfemoral Amputee Using Bone-Anchored Prostheses vs. Socket Prostheses: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Janice Tan, Nafisa Zilani, Rezaul Karim, Bijendra Patel

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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

4 authors.

Janice TanBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8953-7239
Nafisa ZilaniBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Rezaul KarimBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Bijendra PatelDepartment of Laparoscopic Surgery and Surgical Skills, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amputation has a profound impact on an individual's quality of life (QoL) and functional ability. While socket prostheses are the current first-line treatment, they often cause socket-related issues. Bone-anchored prostheses (BAP) have been introduced to address these problems and improve the amputee experience. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare the QoL between bone-anchored and socket prostheses in transfemoral amputees. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted from November 2023 to July 2024, following PRISMA guidelines. Databases including PUBMED, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched. Studies of single-arm trial design comparing pre- and post-operative outcomes were selected based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using inverse variance with a random effect model. The primary outcome was QoL, measured using the Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), and the secondary outcome was mobility, assessed by the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Subgroup analyses compared different types of BAP (Press-fit vs. Screw-type) on QoL. Thirteen NRCTs with 398 participants were included. Significant improvements in QoL were observed in all Q-TFA domains and the SF-36 Physical Component Score (PCS), but not in the SF-36 Mental Component Score (MCS). Mobility improved significantly as measured by the six-minute walk test (6MWT). No significant differences in QoL were found between Press-fit and Screw-type BAP implants. Overall, BAP significantly improve both QoL and mobility, but study limitations currently restrict their use to individuals with socket-related complications. As such, it cannot yet be universally recommended as a first-line intervention.

Indexed as

Amputation, SurgicalAmputeesArtificial LimbsBone-Anchored ProsthesisFemurQuality of LifeHumansProsthesis Designbone‐anchoredmobilityquality of lifesocket‐suspendedtransfemoral amputation

Identifiers

PMID40677172
PMCPMC12318688

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.