Title |
Measures and procedures utilized to determine the added value of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints: a systematic review
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-14-333 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Patrick JR Theeven, Bea Hemmen, Peter RG Brink, Rob JEM Smeets, Henk AM Seelen |
Abstract |
The effectiveness of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints (MPKs) has been assessed using a variety of outcome measures in a variety of health and health-related domains. However, if the patient is to receive a prosthetic knee joint that enables him to function optimally in daily life, it is vital that the clinician has adequate information about the effects of that particular component on all aspects of persons' functioning. Especially information concerning activities and participation is of high importance, as this component of functioning closely describes the person's ability to function with the prosthesis in daily life. The present study aimed to review the outcome measures that have been utilized to assess the effects of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee joints (MPK), in comparison with mechanically controlled prosthetic knee joints, and aimed to classify these measures according to the components and categories of functioning defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Subsequently, the gaps in the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of MPKs were determined. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Netherlands | 2 | 29% |
Canada | 1 | 14% |
Germany | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 76 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 13 | 17% |
Researcher | 9 | 12% |
Other | 8 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
Other | 12 | 16% |
Unknown | 21 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Engineering | 20 | 26% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 22% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 8% |
Unknown | 21 | 27% |