The mechanical stiffness of running-specific prostheses likely affects the functional abilities of athletes with leg amputations. However, each prosthetic manufacturer recommends prostheses based on subjective stiffness categories rather than performance based metrics. The actual mechanical stiffness values of running-specific prostheses (i.e. kN/m) are unknown. Consequently, we sought to characterize and disseminate the stiffness values of running-specific prostheses so that researchers, clinicians, and athletes can objectively evaluate prosthetic function. We characterized the stiffness values of 55 running-specific prostheses across various models, stiffness categories, and heights using forces and angles representative of those measured from athletes with transtibial amputations during running. Characterizing prosthetic force-displacement profiles with a 2nd degree polynomial explained 4.4% more of the variance than a linear function (p<0.001). The prosthetic stiffness values of manufacturer recommended stiffness categories varied between prosthetic models (p<0.001). Also, prosthetic stiffness was 10% to 39% less at angles typical of running 3 m/s and 6 m/s (10°-25°) compared to neutral (0°) (p<0.001). Furthermore, prosthetic stiffness was inversely related to height in J-shaped (p<0.001), but not C-shaped, prostheses. Running-specific prostheses should be tested under the demands of the respective activity in order to derive relevant characterizations of stiffness and function. In all, our results indicate that when athletes with leg amputations alter prosthetic model, height, and/or sagittal plane alignment, their prosthetic stiffness profiles also change; therefore variations in comfort, performance, etc. may be indirectly due to altered stiffness.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#5,249,666
of 27,788,586 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#100,584
of 241,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,520
of 419,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,115
of 3,950 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,586 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 241,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,950 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
