0 Item(s)
Improving the Quality of Evidence on Upper-Limb Prostheses Through the Standardization of Outcome Measurement
State of the Science Conference Findings
Keyword(s)
disability evaluation, upper limb, prostheses, outcome
This commentary discusses the challenges in conducting systematic reviews of studies comparing upper-limb prostheses given the wide variety of outcome measures used in scientific research. The paper calls for the use of a standardized brief core set of validated outcome measures. A culture change is needed to facilitate widespread adoption of a standardized core set in all routine clinical encounters and research studies. The result will be critically needed data to enable comparison of outcomes of different prosthesis types and components, and ultimately, stronger scientific evidence to assist in clinical and policy decision making. (J Prosthet Orthot. 2017;29:P21–P24)
Author(s)
Linda Resnik, PT, PhD, FAPTA
Description
In 2014, Carey, Lura, and Highsmith published a systematic review that examined differences between myoelectric and body-powered prostheses to inform evidence-based clinical practice regarding prescription of these devices and training of users. The evidence synthesis resulting from this review found mixed results and a paucity of data. Only 31 of 462 studies identified through rigorous searches met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, and of these, nearly 60% were rated as having low methodological quality. Based on these articles, 11 evidence statements about the differences between myoelectric and body-powered devices were generated. However, 82% of these evidence statements were based on low-quality or insufficient evidence. The investigators also reported that very few outcome measures were used in multiple studies, making it particularly difficult to compare or pool results across studies.