ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Prosthesis receipt is associated with improved participation and pain interference following upper limb amputation.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Following upper limb amputation (ULA), resuming everyday activities is a primary goal for patients. In many cases, a prosthesis can assist patients by increasing physical function and overall well-being. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between prosthesis receipt and two domains - Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (APSRA) and Pain Interference (PI). Materials and methods: A retrospective cross-sectional review of outcomes collected across private prosthetic clinics in the United States was performed. Individuals were included if they had an outcome collected before prosthesis receipt and within twelve months after prosthesis receipt. There were no exclusions based on level of amputation, etiology, or device type. Results: Univariate model results demonstrated a significant improvement in average APSRA (Baseline: 41.5±8.2 and Follow-up: 46.7±9.1, p<0.001). Additionally, PI significantly improved (Baseline: 58.5±8.5 and Follow-up: 54.9±9.3, p<0.001). These significant differences persisted when accounting for confounders such as age, hours worn, sex, amputation level, time since amputation, and time from first prosthesis delivery to follow-up. Conclusions: Prosthesis receipt improved individuals' ability to increase their activity and participation. This coincided with improvements in pain interference. Results from this study can aid clinical decision-making for clinicians and patients as they explore interventions following ULA.
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.