Trial reportPloS one2026
Toward evidence-based prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot devices: A multisite randomized crossover trial identifying performance-based, patient-reported, and biomechanical parameters sensitive to device type.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prescription of prosthetic ankle-foot devices is constrained by imprecise clinical guidelines and inconsistent scientific evidence, hindering optimal device selection for individuals with lower limb loss. This multisite, prospective, randomized crossover study aimed to identify patient-reported, performance-based, and biomechanical parameters sensitive to ankle-foot device type, providing a foundation for more objective and individualized prescription practices. Ninety-one individuals with unilateral transtibial limb loss completed the crossover trial, and 13 control participants without musculoskeletal impairment were enrolled to provide normative reference data. Participants were fitted with duplicate sockets and randomized to trial three ankle-foot device types: energy storing and returning, articulating, and powered. Participants were heterogeneous in demographic characteristics, including veterans, service members, and civilians. After one week of acclimation per device, participants completed performance-based (6-minute walk, Timed Up and Go, Four Square Step Test, Stair and Hill Assessment Indices, Amputee Mobility Predictor) and patient-reported (Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey) assessments; a subset (n = 29 completed) underwent full-body gait analysis to capture detailed biomechanical parameters. Biomechanical outcomes demonstrated the greatest sensitivity to device type, with 19 distinct parameters, primarily at the ankle, highlighting ankle mechanics as a key determinant of differences among prosthetic devices. Five Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire subscales were sensitive to device type, while performance-based measures showed no significant effects. Results revealed a dichotomy between biomechanical and patient-reported outcomes: Biomechanical parameters were more similar to control values for powered devices, whereas patient-reported outcomes favored non-powered devices. Linear discriminant analysis identified key gait features, including peak plantarflexion during preswing and peak ankle moment, which most strongly contributed to group separation and clinical discrimination. These findings identified distinct biomechanical and patient-reported parameters sensitive to ankle-foot device type and highlight the need for evidence-based, individualized prosthetic prescription to optimize device selection and improve patient outcomes.
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.