Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41800333›Full record

ReviewWearable technologies2026

State of the art of lower limb prosthesis simulators: A literature review.

Imke Neelen, Bob van der Windt, Matthew Justin Major, Gerwin Smit

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wearable technologies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Imke NeelenBiomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.
Bob van der WindtBiomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7101-2486
Matthew Justin MajorPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, USA.
Gerwin SmitBiomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8160-3238

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals with limb loss present significant challenges to testing and evaluating prosthetic devices, such as medical approval processes and participant availability. Prosthesis simulators, designed for mimicking prosthesis use with able-bodied individuals, offer an alternative to conducting controlled experiments and enhancing the development of prosthetic technologies. This review examines the design features, applications, and limitations of lower limb prosthesis simulators. A literature search identified 73 studies that have used lower limb prosthesis simulators. Most studies have focused on transfemoral prosthesis simulators (TFsims) and testing prosthetic designs and control mechanisms. The most frequently assessed movement was walking, while other movements, were explored only sporadically. The findings reveal significant variability in simulator configurations, training protocols, and the range of movements assessed. Additionally, a notable research gap exists in evaluations of the effect of transtibial prosthesis simulators (TTsims) and hip disarticulation prosthesis simulators (HDsims) on gait. Despite these challenges, prosthesis simulators offer promising potential for accelerating and improving prosthesis development while putting less stress on the relatively small target group of individuals with limb loss. Further research is needed to standardize methodologies and better understand the effects of simulator design and training on gait performance to facilitate advancements in prosthetic research.

Indexed as

biomechanicsdesignprosthetics

Identifiers

PMID41800333
PMCPMC12964165

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.