ReviewProsthetics and orthotics international2020
A toolkit for prosthetists and orthotists to facilitate progress in professional communication over the next 50 years.
Review in Prosthetics and orthotics international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Competence and Job Market Readiness of Prosthetics and Orthotics Graduates: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development of a research agenda for medical grade footwear in the Netherlands: A multidisciplinary multiphase project to determine the key research questions to advance scientific knowledge in the field.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024Article
- Patient Compliance With Wearing Lower Limb Assistive Devices: A Scoping Review.Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics · 2022Article
- Academia's Role to Drive Change in the Orthotics and Prosthetics profession.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2021Article
- An Operational Perspective of The Changing Prosthetics & Orthotics Landscape.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this celebratory issue of
objectiveWe aim to reflect on communication skills in the past 50 years, to discuss developments in the coming 50 years, and to create a toolkit and research agenda to facilitate progress in professional communication in the next 50 years.
resultsDespite being a key area in prosthetics and orthotics training programmes, we found no studies on professional communication with an experimental design published in
conclusionsWe hope this toolkit will inspire others to use, extend and implement it in their daily practice. As a research agenda, we strongly recommend undertaking research on interventions to improve professional communication and to study its effect on clinically meaningful outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.