ArticleProsthetics and orthotics international2026
A research priority setting for ankle-foot orthosis care in the Netherlands; a survey among rehabilitation specialists, orthotists, and orthotic users.
Article in Prosthetics and orthotics international, 2026. 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveAnkle-foot orthoses (AFOs) are often prescribed for lower leg muscle impairments. In order to conduct impactful research, we aimed to establish a list of prioritized research questions regarding AFO care in the Netherlands from the perspective of healthcare professionals and AFO users. STUDY
designA purposefully designed online survey.
methodsTo identify relevant research questions regarding the AFO care process the online survey was sent to rehabilitation specialists, orthotists and AFO users in the Netherlands. The research questions were grouped into specific research needs according to the Process description of medical devices. The priority of the research needs was determined using a 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS), with 10 being the highest priority.
resultsThe survey was completed by 62 rehabilitation specialists, 47 orthotists and 184 AFO users. Rehabilitation specialists prioritized research on "Effects of AFO properties" (numeric rating scale score: 8.3 ± 1.2) and "Choice of AFO type and design" (8.1 ± 2.0). Orthotists prioritized research on "How to cast and correct the plaster model" (8.9 ± 1.3) and "Effects of AFO properties" (8.7±1.4). Ankle-foot orthoses users prioritized research on "Improvement of AFO-shoe fitting and information on appropriate shoes'" (8.6 ± 1.8) and "Possibilities to choose and test different AFOs before provision" (8.5 ± 1.3).
conclusionsOur inventory of research needs has provided a list of research priorities that can be used to structure AFO-related knowledge development. Healthcare professionals and patients have different research priorities that should be taken into account when designing and setting up future AFO-related research.
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.