Virtual Assessment of Functional Mobility in Lower Extremity Prosthesis Clients: An Exploratory Study.
Oluwagbemiga DadeMatthews, Jaimie A Roper, Adan Vazquez and 2 others
PMID 39372248WHAT IT FOUND
Twelve lower-limb prosthesis users completed a virtual mobility test at home.
Their self-reported function scores matched the timed Up and Go results. A faster Up and Go time predicted a higher self-rated ability to handle daily activities.
Key findings
01A strong negative correlation existed between self-reported function scores and the time taken to complete the virtual timed Up and Go test.
02The virtual timed Up and Go test significantly predicted self-reported function scores, with each additional second of completion time associated with a 1.37-point decrease in the score.
03Participants reported average functionality on the Lower Extremity Functional Scale, with most finding basic tasks like dressing and toileting easy but struggling with running.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 12 participants, which limits the ability to detect true effects. The design was cross-sectional, so it cannot prove that mobility test performance causes changes in self-reported function or vice versa. Physical activity levels were not controlled for, which could act as a confounder. One participant was excluded from the Up and Go analysis because they were using a newly obtained prosthesis, reducing the sample size for that measure to 11.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the 50% predictive accuracy as proof that the virtual Up and Go test is a validated standalone diagnostic tool. This was a pilot study with 11 analyzed participants, and the authors explicitly state the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size and cross-sectional design.