ArticleScientific reports2026
Effects of prosthetic ankle power and foot stiffness category on biomechanical asymmetry and knee moment during walking at different speeds.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
People with unilateral transtibial amputation (uTTA) using a passive-elastic prosthesis typically walk with contact time (tc) and first and second peak vertical ground reaction force (F1 and F2) asymmetry and greater first peak external knee adduction moment in their unaffected versus affected leg. A previous study found that use of stance-phase powered prosthesis (BiOM) at a recommended power setting compared to a passive-elastic prosthesis can reduce tc asymmetry at self-selected speed and unaffected leg first peak external knee adduction moment at 1.50–1.75 m/s. However, the BiOM includes a passive-elastic prosthesis that can have different stiffness categories and can be tuned to different power settings, which may affect tc and F1 and F2 asymmetry and unaffected leg first peak external knee adduction moment. Thirteen people with uTTA used 16 different passive-elastic prosthetic foot stiffness categories and BiOM power settings to walk at 0.75–1.75 m/s. We found that use of the stiffest compared to least stiff category reduced F2 asymmetry. Use of the BiOM reduced tc asymmetry compared to a passive-elastic prosthesis and the effects of power setting on F1 and F2 asymmetry depended on walking speed. To minimize biomechanical asymmetry during walking at 1.25 m/s, people with uTTA should use the BiOM with power settings up to 20% greater than those that match biological ankle joint biomechanics. Such prosthetic settings could potentially reduce unaffected leg joint pain and/or osteoarthritis risk.
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.