Review and critique of current testing protocols for upper-limb prostheses: a call for standardization amidst rapid technological advancements.

Autor:	Siegel JR; Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States., Battraw MA; Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States., Winslow EJ; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States., James MA; Shriners Hospital for Children, Northern California, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, United States., Joiner WM; Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.; Department of Neurology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States., Schofield JS; Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Frontiers in robotics and AI [Front Robot AI] 2023 Nov 15; Vol. 10, pp. 1292632. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Nov 15 (Print Publication: 2023).
DOI:	10.3389/frobt.2023.1292632
Abstrakt:	This article provides a comprehensive narrative review of physical task-based assessments used to evaluate the multi-grasp dexterity and functional impact of varying control systems in pediatric and adult upper-limb prostheses. Our search returned 1,442 research articles from online databases, of which 25 tests-selected for their scientific rigor, evaluation metrics, and psychometric properties-met our review criteria. We observed that despite significant advancements in the mechatronics of upper-limb prostheses, these 25 assessments are the only validated evaluation methods that have emerged since the first measure in 1948. This not only underscores the lack of a consistently updated, standardized assessment protocol for new innovations, but also reveals an unsettling trend: as technology outpaces standardized evaluation measures, developers will often support their novel devices through custom, study-specific tests. These boutique assessments can potentially introduce bias and jeopardize validity. Furthermore, our analysis revealed that current validated evaluation methods often overlook the influence of competing interests on test success. Clinical settings and research laboratories differ in their time constraints, access to specialized equipment, and testing objectives, all of which significantly influence assessment selection and consistent use. Therefore, we propose a dual testing approach to address the varied demands of these distinct environments. Additionally, we found that almost all existing task-based assessments lack an integrated mechanism for collecting patient feedback, which we assert is essential for a holistic evaluation of upper-limb prostheses. Our review underscores the pressing need for a standardized evaluation protocol capable of objectively assessing the rapidly advancing prosthetic technologies across all testing domains. Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. (Copyright © 2023 Siegel, Battraw, Winslow, James, Joiner and Schofield.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu