Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 197

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency–acquired and congenital

Datta, Dipak, Selvarajah, Kanther, Davey, Nicola·2004·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency – acquired and congenital (elbow disarticulation, transhumeral, shoulder disarticulation and forequarter level). Design: Cohort observational study. Subjects: All proximal upper limb amputees and patients with congenital upper limb absence currently registered with the Sheffeld Mobility and Specialised Rehabilitation Centre. Methods: A self-administered postal questionnaire and medical records were used to collect data. The questionnaire obtained information about demographic details, dominancy of the amputated arm and independence and participation in activities of daily living (ADL), domestic and recreational activities. The prevalence of pain in the phantom limb and stump, and information regarding the remaining arm was also obtained. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to evaluate the psychological state of the subjects. Results: Trauma was the commonest cause of proximal upper limb loss (71.25%). Transhumeral amputation was the predominant level (78.75%). Although 73.2% returned to work following amputation, 66.6% had to change job. Overall rejection rate of prosthesis was 33.75%. Twenty-five per cent of patients found the prosthesis beneficial for driving and a small proportion used the prosthesis for employment and recreational activities, but the vast majority used the prosthesis primarily for cosmesis. Pain in the phantom limb was reported in 60% of our patients but there was no significant correlation between this and depression. Symptoms of overuse injury in the nonamputated limb were higher than expected in the normal population. Conclusion: As many as 33.75% of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency rejected their prostheses and many who continue to wear them do not find them useful in ADL and employment, etc. It is vital that rehabilitation programmes should focus on both prosthetic and nonprosthetic training to achieve maximal independence.

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 · 10.1191/0269215504cr716oa

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 197

Metadata

Authors
Datta, D., Selvarajah, K., & Davey, N.
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2004-03
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
172-177
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W2155958192
Cited by
197
References
0
FWCI
4.29
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: Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency–acquired and congenital. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/0269215504cr716oa
The paper
Datta, D., Selvarajah, K., & Davey, N. (2004). Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency–acquired and congenital. Clinical Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215504cr716oa

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.