ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Analysis of the functional performance of amputees on the timed up and go scale compared to healthy volunteers: cross-sectional observational study.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The amputation of a limb directly impacts functioning. The lack of standardization in the assessment of lower-limb amputees complicates the identification of actual impairments. The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test has been validated and used in these individuals' clinical practice. The authors compared the performance of lower-limb amputees with that of healthy volunteers and identified the factors involved in performing the test and, consequently, in the patient´s functioning ability. Lower limb amputee individuals referred to the Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation of the Hospital das Clínicas of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of São Paulo (IMREA-HCFMUSP) were included, as well as healthy volunteers, between August 2020 and July 2022. Statistical data were analyzed using Stata 14, with a significance level set at α < 0.05. The results indicate that TUG times were statistically different between the groups, which can be explained by factors such as age, mobility measured by the Amputee Mobility Predictor Questionnaire (AMP), and prosthetic use. The TUG test can be standardized in clinical practice for amputee patients, and identifying the factors influencing its values supports the structuring of rehabilitation for lower-limb amputations.
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.