Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36335345›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022

A review of user needs to drive the development of lower limb prostheses.

Sabina Manz, Romain Valette, Federica Damonte, Lucas Avanci Gaudio, Jose Gonzalez-Vargas, Massimo Sartori, Strahinja Dosen, Johan Rietman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

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

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Measuring satisfaction with orthotic and prosthetic devices.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Locomotion Decoding (Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Sabina Manz *Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, Duderstadt, Germany. sabina.manz@ottobock.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2033-1638
Romain Valette *Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2101-8552
Federica DamonteDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3411-8440
Lucas Avanci GaudioDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7245-5683
Jose Gonzalez-VargasOttobock SE & Co. KGaA, Duderstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3448-7393
Massimo SartoriDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0930-6535
Strahinja DosenDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3035-147X
Johan RietmanDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4110-4757

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of bionic legs has seen substantial improvements in the past years but people with lower-limb amputation still suffer from impairments in mobility (e.g., altered balance and gait control) due to significant limitations of the contemporary prostheses. Approaching the problem from a human-centered perspective by focusing on user-specific needs can allow identifying critical improvements that can increase the quality of life. While there are several reviews of user needs regarding upper limb prostheses, a comprehensive summary of such needs for those affected by lower limb loss does not exist.

methodsWe have conducted a systematic review of the literature to extract important needs of the users of lower-limb prostheses. The review included 56 articles in which a need (desire, wish) was reported explicitly by the recruited people with lower limb amputation (N = 8149).

resultsAn exhaustive list of user needs was collected and subdivided into functional, psychological, cognitive, ergonomics, and other domain. Where appropriate, we have also briefly discussed the developments in prosthetic devices that are related to or could have an impact on those needs. In summary, the users would like to lead an independent life and reintegrate into society by coming back to work and participating in social and leisure activities. Efficient, versatile, and stable gait, but also support to other activities (e.g., sit to stand), contribute to safety and confidence, while appearance and comfort are important for the body image. However, the relation between specific needs, objective measures of performance, and overall satisfaction and quality of life is still an open question.

conclusionsIdentifying user needs is a critical step for the development of new generation lower limb prostheses that aim to improve the quality of life of their users. However, this is not a simple task, as the needs interact with each other and depend on multiple factors (e.g., mobility level, age, gender), while evolving in time with the use of the device. Hence, novel assessment methods are required that can evaluate the impact of the system from a holistic perspective, capturing objective outcomes but also overall user experience and satisfaction in the relevant environment (daily life).

Indexed as

AmputeesArtificial LimbsAmputation, SurgicalHumansQuality of LifeUpper ExtremityLower limb prostheticsProsthesis requirementsUser-centered designUser needs

Identifiers

PMID36335345
PMCPMC9636812

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.