MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321379818 · doi:10.5195/ijms.2022.1768

Unilateral Lower Limb Amputations from Traumatic Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4321379818 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Phyu Htet, Lubna Mohammed, Khushbu Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Students · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMeta-analysisMedicineAmputationPhysical therapyRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)GuidelineConfidence intervalSystematic reviewMEDLINEProsthesisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background
 Limb amputations are one of the most devastating injuries for young people in traumatic settings. People with lower extremity loss face challenges in performing daily activities and managing life-long complications; thus, rehabilitation and prostheses are critical in improving the quality of life. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the outcomes of people who had unilateral transtibial and transfemoral amputations in terms of mobility, physical activity, prosthesis usage, and associated pain.
 Methods
 An in-depth search was conducted on the electronic databases of PubMed and Science Direct databases in September 2022 to find studies that investigated the health outcomes of traumatic unilateral leg amputees. Observational studies, clinical studies, comparative studies, and randomized controlled trials in the English language and within the last 10 years (2012-2022) were thoroughly screened according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The quality of search results was checked by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The current meta-analysis included four observational studies which comprised 563 patients, 352 transtibial, and 211 transfemoral amputations. RevMan 5.4 software was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to conduct this meta-analysis.
 Results
 The pooled effect estimate showed no statistically significant difference between transtibial and transfemoral amputees(RR = 1.15, 95% CI [0.93, 1.43], P = 0.21) in terms of physical activity. People who had transfemoral amputations used prostheses more frequently than those who had transtibial amputations(RR = 1.21,95% CI [1.09, 1.35], P = 0.0004). There was no statistical difference between the two groups who reported pain during prosthesis wearing (RR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.62, 1.73], P = 0.91).
 Conclusion
 People who used leg prostheses more frequently were associated with more independent mobility and adequate physical activity. Leg prostheses with better accommodation and mobility benefit people with traumatic unilateral transfemoral amputations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical StudentsSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207