Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36787171›Full record

ArticlePM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2023

Development of an item bank for measuring prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputation: The Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M).

Brian J Hafner, Dagmar Amtmann, Sara J Morgan, Daniel C Abrahamson, Robert L Askew, Alyssa M Bamer, Rana Salem, Ignacio A Gaunaurd, Robert S Gailey, Collaborators (PLUS-M Advisory Panel) and 7 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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
  4. Transitioning Towards Quality-of-Care Assessment in Orthotics and Prosthetics Practice.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Health-related quality of life after major extremity trauma: qualitative research with military service members and clinicians to inform measurement of patient-reported outcomes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Brian J HafnerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6175-1869
Dagmar AmtmannDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1142-9729
Sara J MorganDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8059-3659
Daniel C AbrahamsonMobile Prosthetic and Orthotic Care, Veterans Integrated Service Network 20 VA NW Health Network, Seattle, WA, USA.
Robert L AskewDepartment of Psychology, Stetson University, Deland, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9579-2279
Alyssa M BamerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1550-9603
Rana SalemDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9697-9385
Ignacio A GaunaurdDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Coral Gables, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8241-0684
Robert S GaileyDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Coral Gables, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8512-2511
Collaborators (PLUS-M Advisory Panel)
Joseph M CzernieckiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2553-9243
Stefania FatoneDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5802-035X
John R FergasonCenter for the Intrepid, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Ian FothergillMedical Center Orthotics & Prosthetics, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Valerie E KellyDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0099-9219
Eric L WeberHanger Institute for Clinical Research and Education, Austin, TX, USA.
Gale G WhiteneckResearch Department, Craig Hospital, Englewood, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3609-5104

Funding

Comparing Treatment Approaches to Promote Inpatient Rehabilitation Effectiveness for Traumatic Brain Injury (CARE 4 TBI)UH3NS117844 · NINDS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JENNIFER A BOGNER, Cynthia L. Beaulieu · 2023 to 2026
$9.5M
Comparing Treatment Approaches to Promote Inpatient Rehabilitation Effectiveness for Traumatic Brain Injury (CARE 4 TBI)UG3NS117844 · NINDS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BEAULIEU, CYNTHIA L., BOGNER, JENNIFER A · 2021 to 2022
$5.0M
A Client-Based Outcome System for Individuals with Lower Limb AmputationR01HD065340 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HAFNER, BRIAN J · 2014 to 2022
$2.7M
ACL HHS 90DPTB0018NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD065340NINDS NIH HHS UG3 NS117844NINDS NIH HHS UH3 NS117844
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAchieving mobility with a prosthesis is a common post-amputation rehabilitation goal and primary outcome in prosthetic research studies. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure prosthetic mobility have practical and psychometric limitations that inhibit their use in clinical care and research.

objectiveTo develop a brief, clinically meaningful, and psychometrically robust PROM to measure prosthetic mobility.

designA cross-sectional study was conducted to administer previously developed candidate items to a national sample of lower limb prosthesis users. Items were calibrated to an item response theory model and two fixed-length short forms were created. Instruments were assessed for readability, effective range of measurement, agreement with the full item bank, ceiling and floor effects, convergent validity, and known groups validity.

settingParticipants were recruited using flyers posted in hospitals and prosthetics clinics across the United States, magazine advertisements, notices posted to consumer websites, and direct mailings.

participantsAdult prosthesis users (N = 1091) with unilateral lower limb amputation due to traumatic or dysvascular causes.

interventionsNot applicable.

main outcome measuresCandidate items (N = 105) were administered along with the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Brief Profile, Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire - Mobility Subscale, and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale, and questions created to characterize respondents.

resultsA bank of 44 calibrated self-report items, termed the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M), was produced. Clinical and statistical criteria were used to select items for 7- and 12-item short forms. PLUS-M instruments had an 8th grade reading level, measured with precision across a wide range of respondents, exhibited little-to-no ceiling or floor effects, correlated expectedly with scores from existing PROMs, and differentiated between groups of respondents expected to have different levels of mobility.

conclusionThe PLUS-M appears to be well suited to measuring prosthetic mobility in people with lower limb amputation. PLUS-M instruments are recommended for use in clinical and research settings.

Indexed as

AmputeesArtificial LimbsAdultAmputation, SurgicalCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLower ExtremitySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36787171
PMCPMC10121932

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.