ArticleProsthetics and orthotics international2026
Comparisons of (cost-)effectiveness of manual, hybrid, and digital shape capture and shape design techniques for transtibial and transfemoral prosthetic sockets: A scoping review.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review provides an overview of studies comparing the (cost-)effectiveness of shape capture and socket design techniques for transtibial and transfemoral prostheses. The review compares manual, hybrid, and digital methods, identifies the measurement tools used, and assesses their methodological quality. Effectiveness refers to clinical and functional outcomes such as socket fit, comfort, and user function, whereas cost-effectiveness reflects the balance between resource use and these outcomes. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, 5 databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane) were systematically searched. Studies involving humans with transtibial or transfemoral prostheses that compared at least 2 of the 3 methods and reported (cost-)effectiveness outcomes were included. Of 556 articles screened, 20 met the inclusion criteria (497 participants). Sixteen studies evaluated transtibial prostheses and 4 transfemoral prostheses. Manual and hybrid methods were compared in 14 studies, and digital and manual methods in 6, whereas none compared hybrid and digital methods. Eighteen studies were rated as low quality, 2 as moderate, and none as high. Effectiveness constructs mainly covered the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains "Body functions & Body structures" and "Activities and participation," but many were not clearly defined within this framework. Reported outcomes most often addressed production time, number of socket attempts, and socket fit or comfort. Overall, evidence remains limited and inconsistent, with a clear lack of direct comparisons between digital and hybrid techniques. Tentatively, hybrid and digital approaches may improve efficiency and comfort compared with manual methods, but robust, standardized research is needed to confirm these effects.
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.