Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36041309›Full record

ArticleClinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)2022

A novel portable sensor to monitor bodily positions and activities in transtibial prosthesis users.

Joseph C Mertens, Jacob T Brzostowski, Andrew Vamos, Katheryn J Allyn, Brian J Hafner, Janna L Friedly, Nicholas S DeGrasse, Daniel Ballesteros, Adam Krout, Brian G Larsen and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Beyond step counts: Including wear time in prosthesis use assessment for lower-limb amputation.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
    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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joseph C MertensDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Jacob T BrzostowskiDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Andrew VamosDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Katheryn J AllynDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Brian J HafnerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Janna L FriedlyDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Nicholas S DeGrasseDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Daniel BallesterosDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Adam KroutDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Brian G LarsenDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Joseph L GarbiniDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Joan E SandersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Electronic address: jsanders@uw.edu.
University of Washington · US

Funding

Measuring In-Socket Residual Limb Volume FluctuationR01HD060585 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SANDERS, JOAN E. · 2009 to 2024
$6.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD060585
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStep activity monitors provide insight into the amount of physical activity prosthesis users conduct but not how they use their prosthesis. The purpose of this research was to help fill this void by developing and testing a technology to monitor bodily position and type of activity.

methodsThin inductive distance sensors were adhered to the insides of sockets of a small group of transtibial prosthesis users, two at proximal locations and two at distal locations. An in-lab structured protocol and a semi-structured out-of-lab protocol were video recorded, and then participants wore the sensing system for up to 7 days. A data processing algorithm was developed to identify sit, seated shift, stand, standing weight-shift, walk, partial doff, and non-use. Sensed distance data from the structured and semi-structured protocols were compared against the video data to characterize accuracy. Bodily positions and activities during take-home testing were tabulated to characterize participants' use of the prosthesis.

findingsSit and walk detection accuracies were above 95% for all four participants tested. Stand detection accuracy was above 90% for three participants and 62.5% for one participant. The reduced accuracy may have been due to limited stand data from that participant. Step count was not proportional to active use time (sum of stand, walk, and standing weight-shift times).

interpretationStep count may provide an incomplete picture of prosthesis use. Larger studies should be pursued to investigate how bodily position and type of activity may facilitate clinical decision-making and improve the lives of people with lower limb amputation.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsAmputation StumpsAmputation, SurgicalHumansProsthesis DesignWalkingActivity monitorAmputeeBody sensorInductive sensingLimb-socket interfaceMagnetic targetOutcome assessmentProsthetic socketResidual limbSocket fit

Identifiers

PMID36041309
PMCPMC10545288
OpenAlexW4292489514

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.