Skip to main content
. 2022 Dec 25;5(2):39023. doi: 10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.39023

Table 3:

Data extraction table.

Authors/year Title Ethical Concerns? Type of Study Participant Demographics Number of Participants Intact, amputee, prosthesis user or combination Setting Self-reported, clinician observed or combination?
Sobuh et al., 2014 13 Visuomotor behaviours when using a myoelectric prosthesis No quantitative intact adults and adult myoelectric prosthesis users 11 combination (intact and prosthesis user) university clinician observed
Lawrence et al., 2015 14 Outcome measures for hand function naturally reveal three latent domains in older adults: strength, coordinated upper extremity function, and sensorimotor processing No quantitative healthy older adults and older adults with osteoarthritis of the CMC joint 99 intact university/rehab centre clinician observed
Resnik and Borgia, 2016 15 Responsiveness of outcome measures for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation No quasi-experiment al study adult upper limb amputees 39 amputee veterans affairs sites combination
Raveh et al., 2018 16 Myoelectric prosthesis users improve performance time and accuracy using vibrotactile feedback when visual feedback is disturbed No quantitative transradial amputees using a myoelectric prosthesis with normal or corrected eyesight 12 prosthesis user laboratory combination
Lee et al., 2020 17 Clip-On IMU system for assessing age-related changes in hand functions No quantitative healthy adults (aged 20-31 and 75-89) 34 intact university clinician observed
Eklund et al., 2009 18 Hand function and disability of the arm, shoulder and hand in charcot-marie-tooth disease No quantitative adults with charcot marie tooth and healthy controls 60 intact hospitals/clinics combination
Hruby et al., 2019 19 Bionic upper limb reconstruction: a valuable alternative in global brachial plexus avulsion injuries-a case series No quantitative adults with complete bracial plexus injury who underwent bionic reconstruction after high level upper limb amputation 5 prosthesis user university combination
Resnik et al., 2020 20 A national survey of prosthesis use in veterans with major upper limb amputation: comparisons by gender No cross-sectional survey adult veterans with upper limb amputation who had been treated between 2010 and 2015 808 amputee telephone survey self-reported
Resnik et al., 2020 21 Function and quality of life of unilateral major upper limb amputees: effect of prosthesis use and type No cross-sectional survey adult veterans with unilateral upper limb amputation who had been treated between 2010 and 2015 755 amputee telephone survey self-reported
Speth et al., 2020 22 Assessment of tree-based statistical learning to estimate optimal personalized treatment decision rules for traumatic finger amputations No cohort study adult patients who underwent revision amputation or replantation 185 amputee various research centres combination
Wang et al., 2021 23 Application of machine learning to the identification of joint degrees of freedom involved in abnormal movement during upper limb prosthesis use No quantitative adults with no upper limb disability, trained on deka bypass or body powered bypass 24 intact laboratory clinician observed
Hruby et al., 2017 24 Algorithm for bionic hand reconstruction in patients with global brachial plexopathies No quantitative adults with posttraumatic global brachial plexopathies 5 prosthesis user university combination
de Boer et al., 2016 25 Intermanual transfer effects in below-elbow myoelectric prosthesis users No case-control study myoelectric prosthesis users and controls 44 combination (intact and prosthesis user) university/rehab centre clinician observed
Bouma et al., 2018 26 Musculoskeletal complaints in individuals with finger or partial hand amputations in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study No cross-sectional study adult finger and hand amputees and healthy controls 201 combination (intact and amputee) questionnaire sent to participants self reported
Bernardon et al., 2015 27 Bilateral hand transplantation: functional benefits assessment in five patients with a mean follow-up of 7.6 years No quantitative adults who underwent hand and forearm allotransplantation following trauma 5 intact (post transplantation) rehabilitation clinic combination