ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Exploring the Perspectives of Different Professions on Task-Based Upper-Limb Prosthesis Assessment Techniques.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the Perspectives of Different Professions on Task-Based Upper-Limb Prosthesis Assessment Techniques.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Effective evaluation of upper-limb prostheses is essential for guiding clinical care, advancing research, and informing device development. There are numerous clinically validated, task-based assessments of function, in which users complete various activities with their prosthesis. Although these tools provide important insights into the users' upper extremity function, their selection varies widely by professional domain and by the purpose of the assessment. Materials and Methods: To better understand these differences, we conducted a cross-professional survey of 100 physical and occupational therapists, prosthetists, physicians, and researchers practicing in the upper extremity prosthesis field. Respondents reported their familiarity and use of 25 task-based assessments and ranked the relative importance of test attributes such as administration time, validity, comprehensiveness, and ability to track patient progress. Results: Results revealed both common and varying priorities: validity and the ability to track patient progress were universally emphasized, while researchers placed relatively higher importance on comprehensiveness, and clinicians favored short administration times. The Box and Block Test was the most widely used across professions. Conclusion: These findings highlight the way in which profession, competing priorities and practical constraints influence the choice of tests used to evaluate upper-limb prosthetic function.
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.