Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physical, Mental, and Social Predictors of Functional Outcome in Unilateral Lower-Limb Amputees11No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.

Schoppen, Tanneke, Boonstra, Annemarijke, Groothoff, Johan W, de Vries, Jaap, Göeken, Ludwig N, Eisma, Willem H·2003·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To study the value of physical, mental, and social characteristics as predictors of functional outcome of elderly amputees. DESIGN Prospective, inception cohort study; comparisons with reference populations. SETTING Main hospitals, rehabilitation centers, nursing homes, patients' own residence settings in 1 of the 3 northern provinces in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS Forty-six patients older than 60 years, with unilateral transtibial or transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation because of vascular disease. INTERVENTIONS Measurement of physical, mental, and social predictors 2 and 6 weeks postamputation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP-68), Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS), Timed up and go (TUG) test, and prosthetic use. RESULTS A total of 15% of amputees died within the first year after amputation. Seventy percent lived independently at home 1 year postamputation. The functional level of the patients was low, as shown by high scores on the SIP-68 (mean, 23.6), GARS (mean, 41.2), and TUG test (mean, 23.9s). Functionally effective prosthetic use, as measured with the classification of Narang and Pohjolainen, was reached by 49%. For the SIP-68 scores, age, comorbidity, 1-leg balance, and the 15-word test predicted functional outcome in 69% of amputees. For the GARS score, age, 1-leg balance, and the 15-word test predicted functional outcome in 64%. For the TUG test, age and 1-leg balance predicted functional outcome in 42% of amputees. After correction for age, the only significant predictor for prosthetic use was 1-leg balance. CONCLUSIONS Elderly patients with a leg amputation had a low functional level 1-year postamputation. An important part of functional outcome could be predicted 2 weeks after amputation by age at amputation, 1-leg balance on the unaffected limb, and cognitive impairment. Severe comorbidity probably also played a role. The results may be used in the general policy concerning leg amputees.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0003-9993(02)04952-3

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Schoppen, T., Boonstra, A., Groothoff, J. W., de Vries, J., Göeken, L. N., & Eisma, W. H.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
84
Issue
6
Pages
803-811
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2121391393
Cited by
256
References
24
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physical, Mental, and Social Predictors of Functional Outcome in Unilateral Lower-Limb Amputees11No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0003-9993(02)04952-3
The paper
Schoppen, T., Boonstra, A., Groothoff, J. W., de Vries, J., Göeken, L. N., & Eisma, W. H. (2003). Physical, Mental, and Social Predictors of Functional Outcome in Unilateral Lower-Limb Amputees11No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(02)04952-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.