Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32665020›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: a systematic review.

Alix Chadwell, Laura Diment, M Micó-Amigo, Dafne Z Morgado Ramírez, Alex Dickinson, Malcolm Granat, Laurence Kenney, Sisary Kheng, Mohammad Sobuh, Robert Ssekitoleko and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Internet of Things for beyond-the-laboratory prosthetics research.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Alix ChadwellUniversity of Salford, Salford, UK.
Laura DimentPeople Powered Prosthetics Group, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
M Micó-AmigoPeople Powered Prosthetics Group, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Dafne Z Morgado RamírezUniversity College London, London, UK.
Alex DickinsonPeople Powered Prosthetics Group, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. alex.dickinson@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9647-1944
Malcolm GranatUniversity of Salford, Salford, UK.
Laurence KenneyUniversity of Salford, Salford, UK.
Sisary KhengUniversity of Salford, Salford, UK.
Mohammad SobuhThe University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Robert SsekitolekoMakerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Peter WorsleyPeople Powered Prosthetics Group, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding how prostheses are used in everyday life is central to the design, provision and evaluation of prosthetic devices and associated services. This paper reviews the scientific literature on methodologies and technologies that have been used to assess the daily use of both upper- and lower-limb prostheses. It discusses the types of studies that have been undertaken, the technologies used to monitor physical activity, the benefits of monitoring daily living and the barriers to long-term monitoring, with particular focus on low-resource settings.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and EMBASE of studies that monitored the activity of prosthesis users during daily-living.

resultsSixty lower-limb studies and 9 upper-limb studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The first studies in the lower-limb field date from the 1990s and the number has increased steadily since the early 2000s. In contrast, the studies in the upper-limb field have only begun to emerge over the past few years. The early lower-limb studies focused on the development or validation of actimeters, algorithms and/or scores for activity classification. However, most of the recent lower-limb studies used activity monitoring to compare prosthetic components. The lower-limb studies mainly used step-counts as their only measure of activity, focusing on the amount of activity, not the type and quality of movements. In comparison, the small number of upper-limb studies were fairly evenly spread between development of algorithms, comparison of everyday activity to clinical scores, and comparison of different prosthesis user populations. Most upper-limb papers reported the degree of symmetry in activity levels between the arm with the prosthesis and the intact arm.

conclusionsActivity monitoring technology used in conjunction with clinical scores and user feedback, offers significant insights into how prostheses are used and whether they meet the user's requirements. However, the cost, limited battery-life and lack of availability in many countries mean that using sensors to understand the daily use of prostheses and the types of activity being performed has not yet become a feasible standard clinical practice. This review provides recommendations for the research and clinical communities to advance this area for the benefit of prosthesis users.

Indexed as

Prostheses and ImplantsArtificial LimbsHumansLower ExtremityMonitoring, PhysiologicTechnologyUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID32665020
PMCPMC7362458

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.