ReviewWearable technologies2026
Effects of ankle-foot prosthesis design on gait and standing performance in transfemoral prosthesis users: A scoping review.
Review in Wearable technologies, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ankle-foot mechanisms are designed to substitute for missing anatomical behavior of lower-limb prosthesis users. Historically, the majority of ankle-foot mechanism research has been focused on transtibial prosthesis users despite evidence that current knowledge is not directly translated to transfemoral prosthesis users, such as the influence of single-axis knee alignment during gait and the differences in standing balance management. This review attempts to characterize the current state of published knowledge about the effects of ankle-foot prosthesis design on standing and walking performance in transfemoral prosthesis users. The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore were searched on January 6, 2025. Data from the selected articles were extracted and reported following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Thirty-five articles were included that reported on seven different types of feet, ranging from simple designs like a solid ankle-cushioned heel (SACH) foot to more complex ones such as a microprocessor foot. The range of reported study tasks extended from standing and level walking to more complex tasks like incline/decline slopes and parcourse walking. The results suggest some parallels between transfemoral and transtibial prosthesis users, such as improvements with the incorporation of roll-over-shape (ROS) features and adaptation of a hydraulic ankle. The literature also emphasized how ankle-foot components affect ground force vector position and direction, influencing prosthetic knee control, highlighting the importance of considering the interaction between the prosthetic ankle-foot and knee mechanisms. Understanding these interactions will support the development of clinical practice guidelines by identifying the pair of prosthetic components that maximizes performance.
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.