3.8 Review

How Do We Measure Success? A Review of Performance Evaluations for Lower-Limb Neuroprosthetics

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages E20-E36

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000355

Keywords

neuroprostheses; lower-limb; prosthetics; amputation; performance; evaluation; clinical benefits; sensory feedback; intent control

Funding

  1. Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS) [195657-051]
  2. Ossur hf, Iceland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review provides an overview of performance-based measures for lower-limb neuroprosthetic systems and evaluates their utility. The results indicate the urgent need for further development of performance tests, metrics, and strategies specifically designed for the evaluation of these systems.
Introduction: Neuroprostheses that can relay signals to and from the nervous system and work with lower-limb prostheses are currently being developed to provide users with sensory feedback and/or intent control over their prostheses. Such systems incorporate functions not available to persons with lower-limb amputation before, and many of their potential benefits have not yet been addressed in performance-based outcome measures. As such, the evaluation of neuroprosthetic systems is considerably more difficult than that of current devices, which are already difficult due to limitations of testing strategies. This review includes an overview of performance-based measures for lower-limb prostheses as well as an appraisal of their utility for neuroprosthetic assessment. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted (2013-2019) in the PubMed (PM) database, the Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane (CC), resulting in 72 included articles. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for further development of performance tests and metrics, as well as new strategies specifically intended for the evaluation of lower-limb neuroprosthetic systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available