Standard

GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO EVALUATE A LOWER-LIMB PROSTHETIC DEVICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. / Ghillebert, Jo; De Bock, Sander; Flynn, Louis; Geeroms, Joost; Tassignon, Bruno; Roelands, Bart; Lefeber, Dirk; Vanderborght, Bram; Meeusen, Romain; De Pauw, Kevin.

Book of Abstracts 24th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science. Prague : European College of Sport Science, 2019. p. 669-669.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingMeeting abstract (Book)

Harvard

Ghillebert, J, De Bock, S, Flynn, L, Geeroms, J, Tassignon, B, Roelands, B, Lefeber, D, Vanderborght, B, Meeusen, R & De Pauw, K 2019, GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO EVALUATE A LOWER-LIMB PROSTHETIC DEVICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. in Book of Abstracts 24th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science. European College of Sport Science, Prague, pp. 669-669, ECSS 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, 3/07/19.

APA

Ghillebert, J., De Bock, S., Flynn, L., Geeroms, J., Tassignon, B., Roelands, B., ... De Pauw, K. (2019). GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO EVALUATE A LOWER-LIMB PROSTHETIC DEVICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. In Book of Abstracts 24th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science (pp. 669-669). Prague: European College of Sport Science.

Vancouver

Ghillebert J, De Bock S, Flynn L, Geeroms J, Tassignon B, Roelands B et al. GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO EVALUATE A LOWER-LIMB PROSTHETIC DEVICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. In Book of Abstracts 24th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science. Prague: European College of Sport Science. 2019. p. 669-669

Author

BibTeX

@inbook{5df42a622ced4efbb83356dfa213fcf3,
title = "GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO EVALUATE A LOWER-LIMB PROSTHETIC DEVICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION:Evaluating the effectiveness of a lower-limb prosthetic device (LLPD) during daily activities is a crucial step in the iterativeprocess of redesigning and product development of new generation prostheses. To date, several different experimental protocols havebeen applied to evaluate a LLPD in laboratory and field conditions, which causes study heterogeneity. Therefore, the aim of this systematicreview was to formulate guidelines and recommendations in order to standardize the experimental methodology regarding the evaluationof a LLPD.METHODS: Two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, were screened and studies published between 1997 and 2019 evaluating aLLPD were included.RESULTS: Thirty-six articles were included. We identified forty-four outcome measures in four main categories: 54{\%} were biomechanical,25{\%} physiological, 14{\%} physical performance and 7{\%} psychological. Seven eligible tests were identified: the two- and six-minute walktest (80{\%}), slope walking (14{\%}), stair climbing (8{\%}), dual tasks (6{\%}), timed up & go (3{\%}) and balance tests (3{\%}).CONCLUSION: The main recommendation is to include functional tasks in a case-controlled (early stage) or crossover counterbalancedmatched group study design (later stage). Biomechanical, physiological, physical performance and psychological outcome measures arekey factors to investigate the human response to a LLPD in order to standardize experimental protocols.",
author = "Jo Ghillebert and {De Bock}, Sander and Louis Flynn and Joost Geeroms and Bruno Tassignon and Bart Roelands and Dirk Lefeber and Bram Vanderborght and Romain Meeusen and {De Pauw}, Kevin",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "9",
language = "English",
pages = "669--669",
booktitle = "Book of Abstracts 24th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science",
publisher = "European College of Sport Science",
address = "Germany",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO EVALUATE A LOWER-LIMB PROSTHETIC DEVICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

AU - Ghillebert, Jo

AU - De Bock, Sander

AU - Flynn, Louis

AU - Geeroms, Joost

AU - Tassignon, Bruno

AU - Roelands, Bart

AU - Lefeber, Dirk

AU - Vanderborght, Bram

AU - Meeusen, Romain

AU - De Pauw, Kevin

PY - 2019/7/9

Y1 - 2019/7/9

N2 - INTRODUCTION:Evaluating the effectiveness of a lower-limb prosthetic device (LLPD) during daily activities is a crucial step in the iterativeprocess of redesigning and product development of new generation prostheses. To date, several different experimental protocols havebeen applied to evaluate a LLPD in laboratory and field conditions, which causes study heterogeneity. Therefore, the aim of this systematicreview was to formulate guidelines and recommendations in order to standardize the experimental methodology regarding the evaluationof a LLPD.METHODS: Two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, were screened and studies published between 1997 and 2019 evaluating aLLPD were included.RESULTS: Thirty-six articles were included. We identified forty-four outcome measures in four main categories: 54% were biomechanical,25% physiological, 14% physical performance and 7% psychological. Seven eligible tests were identified: the two- and six-minute walktest (80%), slope walking (14%), stair climbing (8%), dual tasks (6%), timed up & go (3%) and balance tests (3%).CONCLUSION: The main recommendation is to include functional tasks in a case-controlled (early stage) or crossover counterbalancedmatched group study design (later stage). Biomechanical, physiological, physical performance and psychological outcome measures arekey factors to investigate the human response to a LLPD in order to standardize experimental protocols.

AB - INTRODUCTION:Evaluating the effectiveness of a lower-limb prosthetic device (LLPD) during daily activities is a crucial step in the iterativeprocess of redesigning and product development of new generation prostheses. To date, several different experimental protocols havebeen applied to evaluate a LLPD in laboratory and field conditions, which causes study heterogeneity. Therefore, the aim of this systematicreview was to formulate guidelines and recommendations in order to standardize the experimental methodology regarding the evaluationof a LLPD.METHODS: Two databases, PubMed and Web of Science, were screened and studies published between 1997 and 2019 evaluating aLLPD were included.RESULTS: Thirty-six articles were included. We identified forty-four outcome measures in four main categories: 54% were biomechanical,25% physiological, 14% physical performance and 7% psychological. Seven eligible tests were identified: the two- and six-minute walktest (80%), slope walking (14%), stair climbing (8%), dual tasks (6%), timed up & go (3%) and balance tests (3%).CONCLUSION: The main recommendation is to include functional tasks in a case-controlled (early stage) or crossover counterbalancedmatched group study design (later stage). Biomechanical, physiological, physical performance and psychological outcome measures arekey factors to investigate the human response to a LLPD in order to standardize experimental protocols.

M3 - Meeting abstract (Book)

SP - 669

EP - 669

BT - Book of Abstracts 24th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science

PB - European College of Sport Science

CY - Prague

ER -

ID: 46253907