Ankle-foot orthotic management in neuromuscular disorders: recommendations for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe research evidence supporting clinical recommendations for ankle-foot orthotic (AFO) prescription and examine common limitations in current research among individuals with stroke and cerebral palsy. METHOD: Three databases and one journal website were searched for articles reporting AFO interventions on gait and functional mobility outcome measures in participants with stroke or cerebral palsy. The International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics (ISPO) best practice recommendations from consensus conferences were reviewed. Data extracted from the articles include participant characteristics, AFO intervention details, evaluation methods, and outcome measures. RESULTS: Sixty articles were included; twenty-seven on stroke and thirty-three on cerebral palsy participants. Many articles reported insufficient detail on severity of lower limb impairment. Type of interventions included nineteen nonarticulating AFO studies, twelve articulating AFO studies and twenty-three studies testing both. Confounding factors, such as compliance, activity level and footwear, need to be considered in longitudinal studies. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies demonstrated improvement in walking speed and ankle dorsiflexion, whereas the indirect effect on knee stability remains unclear. Future research needs to provide detailed information on type and severity of lower limb impairment of participants and design features of the AFO intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".