Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
User accommodation to an active microprocessor-controlled knee in individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation: a 5-week non-randomized trial.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05407545 (Evaluation of a Motorised Prosthetic Knee), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Evaluation of a Motorised Prosthetic Knee
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation studies on active microprocessor-controlled knees (AMPK) in individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation (TFA) are lacking in the literature. Furthermore, research on user accommodation to AMPK remains to be investigated. Hence, this study aims to conduct a comparison between an AMPK and individual's current prosthesis and assess the accommodation to using an AMPK during daily activities over a 5-week period on functional performance tests.
methodsParticipants with TFA completed a protocol comprising L-test, slope walking, level walking (2MWT) and dual-task level walking (dual-2MWT) once a week with their current prosthesis and the AMPK. The outcomes of interest were the distance covered during the 2MWT and dual-2MWT, time required to perform the L-test, accuracy of the serial subtractions during the dual-2MWT, heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion, fatigue, comfort and perceived workload. Generalised least-squared models were built to investigate differences in prosthetic conditions over time. Pearson correlations were calculated to determine associations between the performance and subjective outcomes. The level of significance was set at 0.05.
resultsSeven participants (age = 53 years ± 14 years) completed the study. Over time, the AMPK participants took longer to complete the L-test than their current prosthesis (p < 0.001). They reported higher fatigue (p = 0.033), lower comfort (p = 0.010), and higher perceived exertion with the AMPK (p = 0.048). Slope walking showed no significant walking speed or HR differences except higher HR with the AMPK in session 3 (p = 0.032). Dual-task level walking demonstrated lower walking speed with the AMPK (p = 0.035) and more responses to serial subtractions in sessions two (p = 0.043) and four (p = 0.023). No other differences between conditions were found on one of the functional tests. Weak associations (|r|= 0-0.5) were observed between performance and subjective measures.
conclusionUsing the AMPK highlights initial challenges in task completion times and subjective comfort and fatigue levels. Our findings indicate that five one-hour sessions are insufficient for achieving user accommodation, and underscore the need for further research with a larger sample, continued prosthetic use and user accommodation to enhance prosthetic functioning and user experiences.
trial registrationNCT05407545.
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.