key: cord-0924143-n7m1oxii authors: Mellema, Mirjam; Gjøvaag, Terje title: Reported Outcome Measures in Studies of Real-World Ambulation in People with a Lower Limb Amputation: A Scoping Review date: 2022-03-14 journal: Sensors (Basel) DOI: 10.3390/s22062243 sha: f2a16d082701824b2860d2183154ddf5a166f663 doc_id: 924143 cord_uid: n7m1oxii Background: The rapidly increasing use of wearable technology to monitor free-living ambulatory behavior demands to address to what extent the chosen outcome measures are representative for real-world situations. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the purpose of use of wearable activity monitors in people with a Lower Limb Amputation (LLA) in the real world, to identify the reported outcome measures, and to evaluate to what extent the reported outcome measures capture essential information from real-world ambulation of people with LLA. Methods: The literature search included a search in three databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE) for articles published between January 1999 and January 2022, and a hand-search. Results and conclusions: 98 articles met the inclusion criteria. According to the included studies’ main objective, the articles were classified into observational (n = 46), interventional (n = 34), algorithm/method development (n = 12), and validity/feasibility studies (n = 6). Reported outcome measures were grouped into eight categories: step count (reported in 73% of the articles), intensity of activity/fitness (31%), type of activity/body posture (27%), commercial scores (15%), prosthetic use and fit (11%), gait quality (7%), GPS (5%), and accuracy (4%). We argue that researchers should be more careful with choosing reliable outcome measures, in particular, regarding the frequently used category step count. However, the contemporary technology is limited in providing a comprehensive picture of real-world ambulation. The novel knowledge from this review should encourage researchers and developers to engage in debating and defining the framework of ecological validity in rehabilitation sciences, and how this framework can be utilized in the development of wearable technologies and future studies of real-world ambulation in people with LLA. The use of wearable technology to monitor real-world ambulatory activity in people with a Lower Limb Amputation (LLA) has grown rapidly in the past decade. Activity monitors have the potential to provide objective information about peoples' ambulatory behavior and participation in the community, an important domain of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [1] . Data from the Swedish Amputation and Prosthetic Registry show that 27-48% of the 5762 persons with LLA report to not walk outdoors one year post-amputation [2] . Community walking is essential to participate in work, leisure, social activities, and family roles, and the inability to ambulate outside of the home increases isolation and dependency [3] . Monitoring ambulatory behavior of people with LLA in a free-living setting gives valuable information that can be used to develop The reference manager software tool EndNote X9 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, USA was used to export records and to identify and remove duplicates. Remaining records were The reference manager software tool EndNote X9 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA) was used to export records and to identify and remove duplicates. Remaining records were exported to the web-based analysis tool Rayyan (Rayyan Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA), that allows for blinded screening by multiple reviewers [23] . The screening process involved two phases: (1) reviewing based on title and abstract and (2) full-text article reviewing. For the first phase, two reviewers independently assessed the inclusion eligibility and rated each record with either 'include', 'exclude', or 'maybe'. Articles were included if the studies involved (1) at least one person with LLA using a prosthesis, (2) quantitative measurements using wearable technology in a real-world setting, e.g., outside the clinic or laboratory, and (3) participants who were free to decide their ambulatory behavior, without receiving supervision or other instructions. Studies including only persons with partial foot amputation were excluded. Additionally, studies in real-world setting where participants performed a testing protocol or received supervision or other instructions on how to behave, were excluded. Following phase 1, the two reviewers conducted debriefing meetings to discuss potential disagreements on the screening process, that were then solved by consensus. The second phase was performed by one reviewer who reviewed the full text of included articles from phase 1 for inclusion criteria. All included and excluded articles from phase 2 were subsequently discussed with the second reviewer to verify if the two reviewers agreed upon the decision of the first reviewer. Only peer-reviewed articles in the English language were included. Yet, since this is a scoping review, conference abstracts, clinical letters, and Ph.D. theses were included if they met the inclusion criteria. With duplicates existing of an original research article and a conference abstract, the original research article was prioritized, and the conference abstract excluded. The following data was extracted from each article: author(s), year of publication, country of publication, title, study design, objective(s), study population (number of participants, age, etiology, and level of amputation), control group if applicable, wearable technology used, placement of technology, environment and duration of real-world measurements, intervention if applicable, outcome measures reported for the used wearable technology, key findings, conclusion, and clinical relevance. The first reviewer initially extracted the data, and the second reviewer verified the data. The main objective of each study was used to synthesize categories of study design. The study design categories were used as the main structure of an overview table of all included studies. The following information from the extracted data was listed in Table 1 : First author (year and country of publication), title, objective, study population (number of participants (number of females)), age, level and etiology of amputation, technology used (placement on body and duration of monitoring), reported outcome measures, and key findings. The study design categories were described with a detailed summary of the main objective from all articles. The publication year of included articles was summarized and presented in Figure 2 . The analysis of reported outcome measures was performed by collecting all reported outcome measures related to the used wearable technology from each included article. The categorization of reported outcome measures was an iterative process of searching for patterns in the large number of outcome measures and discussions between the first and second reviewer. [24] Understanding changes in physical activity among lower limb prosthesis users: A COVID-19 case series (clinical letter) Understand potential changes to Physical Activity (PA) during shutdown and "shelter-in-place" orders. Steps per day (overall, pre-index, post-index); supplemental data: number of bouts; steps per bout; time per bout; steps per day normalized to pre-index step count Two participants demonstrated clear signs of overall reduced activity through beginning stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2 Rosenblatt (2021, USA) [25] Prosthetic disuse leads to lower balance confidence in a long-term user of a transtibial prosthesis Assess the impact of prosthesis disuse on balance, gait, PA and balance confidence. n = 1(0); 76; TTA; cancer StepWatch 3; prosthetis; 2 × 7 days Steps per day Balance confidence, walking speed and steps per day decreased with 19%, 12%, and 19%, respectively, following 4 months of prosthesis disuse; functional measures were not impacted. 3 Miller (2021, USA) [26] Patterns of sitting, standing, and stepping after lower limb amputation Describe sitting, standing, and stepping patterns and compare the patterns between people with dysvascular Lower Limb Amputation (LLA) and traumatic LLA. Daily step count, moderate-intensity and high-intensity ambulation, and HR-QoL increased, but low-intensity ambulation decreased. [28] Relationship between level of daily activity and upper-body aerobic capacity in adults with a lower limb amputation Investigate the relationship between upper-body peak aerobic capacity (VO2peak), PA levels, and walking capacity. Steps per day, time in sedentary, low, moderate, high intensity (%); peak intensity level VO2peak correlated significantly with daily step count, sedentary time, high-intensity activity level, and peak-intensity activity level, preferred walking speed, and 2-min walking test. 6 Davis-Wilson (2021, USA) [29] Cumulative loading in individuals with non-traumatic lower limb amputation, individuals with diabetes mellitus, and healthy individuals (conference abstract) Determine if differences existed in cumulative loading between individuals with diabetes + LLA, individuals with diabetes, and healthy individuals of similar health. n = 6(0); 58 ± 6; level and etiology of amputation N/A ActiGraph GT3X; hip; 10 days Steps per day; cumulative loading (body weight/day) No Morning-to-afternoon percent limb fluid volume change per hour was not strongly correlated to percent time weight-bearing or to self-report outcomes. 21 Esposito ( Duration dynamic activities, walking, dynamic activities besides walking (%); sit-to-stand transitions (n); overall and walking body motility (g); resting heart rate; absolute heart rate during walking, normalized heart rate during walking (bpm); heart rate reserve (%) Participants with amputation had lower percentage dynamic activities and body motility during walking than controls. No significant differences in heart rate and percentage heart rate reserve during walking. Strong agreement between self-reported and measured activity between 9.00am-9:00pm for 34% of participants. Poor agreement between self-reported and measured time spent in various activity intensities. 42 Kanade ( Uptime was highest in persons with rotationplasty, and similar between persons with limb-sparing reconstruction and above-knee amputation. Duration dynamic activities, walking, (%); sit-to-stand transitions (n); overall and walking body motility (g); resting heart rate; absolute heart rate during walking; normalized heart rate during walking (bpm); percentage heart rate reserve (%) Participants with amputation had lower activity levels and body motility during walking than controls. No differences in normalized heart rate during walking. 46 Coleman (1999, USA) [21] Step activity monitor: long-term, continuous recording of ambulatory function Provide guidelines for use of the Step Activity Monitor (SAM), and results of accuracy and reliability testing, and case study descriptions. n = 2(1); age N/A; 2 TTA; etiology N/A Step Activity Monitor (later StepWatch); ankle; 2 × 1 week Total steps; duration inactivity (hours/day), low, moderate and high activity SAM is accurate, reliable, and can be used to perform long-term step counting on a range of subjects. It is viable means for monitoring gait activity outside of the laboratory during normal daily activities. Interventional studies 1 Vanicek (2021, UK) [68] STEPFORWARD study: a randomized controlled feasibility trial of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot for older patients with vascular-related amputations Determine the feasibility of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot compared with a standard prosthetic ankle-foot. n = 55(8); 68.8 ± 9.6; all TTA; all non-traumatic (diabetes, PVD, blood clot, or other) ActivPAL4; prosthesis; 2 × 1 week) Steps per day; stepping (min/day) (baseline, final) The consent, retention and completion rates demonstrate that it is feasible to recruit and retain participants to a future trial. Steps per day Prosthetic foot stiffness category was significantly associated with changes in prosthetic foot-ankle biomechanics, but not with changes in gait symmetry, community ambulation and relative foot stiffness perception. Coached participants had greater decreases in waist circumference than the self-directed control group. The home-based intervention was promising in terms of efficacy, safety and acceptability. The behavior-change intervention group showed within-group increase in daily step count, and had a higher increase in daily step count than the control group, demonstrating that the intervention might increase walking activity. Step activity and 6-Minute Walk Test outcomes when wearing low-activity or high-activity prosthetic feet Determine changes in daily step count and 6MWT with Low-Activity feet (LA) and high-activity Energy-Storage-And-Return (ESAR) feet, and examine sensitivity of these measures to classify different feet. Participants report benefitting in their performance from using an MPK, but this was not reflected in the daily activity levels. Steps per day; duration activity (minutes/weekdays, weekend days and all days); figure including number of bouts (dots), bout duration (x-axis) and cadence (y-axis) Pylon type and knee type had no effect on daily activity level or activity duration. The only significant difference was for the prosthetic-side knee angle at initial contact, which was higher with the rigid pylon than the SAP while walking a controlled speed, suggesting SAP is as effective as rigid pylon. 34 Coleman ( The initial literature search resulted in 4006 records after removing duplicates. Then, 3198 records were excluded after screening the title and abstract, leaving 115 articles for full-text eligibility screening. Of these, 93 articles met the inclusion criteria, and in addition, 5 articles were identified through hand-searching, resulting in 98 articles included in this review. See details of the literature search and reasons for exclusion in the PRISMA flowchart in Figure 1 . Most studies were performed in the US (n = 65), followed by United Kingdom (n = 7), The Netherlands (n = 6), Australia (n = 6), Canada (n = 4), Germany (n = 3), Norway (n = 2), Thailand (n = 2), Hong Kong (n = 1), Chile (n = 1), and Taiwan (n = 1). Almost half of the studies were published in the past four years (see Figure 2 ). The most frequently used wearable technologies were the StepWatch (Modus Health, Edmonds, USA) [4, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 42, 44, 46, [48] [49] [50] [51] 54, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 69, 73, [77] [78] [79] 84, [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [94] [95] [96] 98, 100, 101, 110, [114] [115] [116] , ActiGraph (ActiGraph, Pensacola, USA) [29, 31, 32, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 70, 75, [80] [81] [82] [83] 92, 105, 109] , FitBit (FitBit, San Francisco, USA) [34, 40, 52, 76, 108, 117] , and activPAL (PAL Technologies, Glasgow, Scotland) [26, 36, 37, 68, 91, 103, 104] . Nine studies used a custom sensor design [41, 60, 74, 102, 106, 107, 109, 112, 113] , six studies used pedometers [56, 59, 71, 72, 99, 113] , and one monitored physical activity with a mobile phone [118] . Six studies added a Global Positioning System (GPS) device in addition to the activity monitors [54, 103, 105, 110, 114] . Other wearable technologies used in the included studies were TEMEC activity monitor (Temec Technologies BV, Heerlen, The Netherlands) [63, 67] , Dynaport ADL (McRoberts BV, The Hague, The Netherlands) [62, 119] , Power Walker (Yamax Health & Sports Inc., Shropshire, UK) [85] , EmpowerGO (Hanger Inc., Austin, USA) [24] , Up move (Jawbone, San Francisco, USA) [35] , Activ 8 (VitaMove, Veldhoven, The Netherlands) [38] , Uptimer (National Ageing Research Institute, Victoria, Australia) [66] , AMP 331 (Dynastream Innovations, Alberta, USA) [97] , and the MiniMods Dynaport (McRoberts BV, The Hague, The Netherlands) [33] . Two studies used an accelerometer, but did not specify the manufacturer [55, 93] . The articles were structured into four categories, based on the primary reason for using wearable technology: observational studies (n = 46), interventional studies (n = 34), The initial literature search resulted in 4006 records after removing duplicates. Then, 3198 records were excluded after screening the title and abstract, leaving 115 articles for full-text eligibility screening. Of these, 93 articles met the inclusion criteria, and in addition, 5 articles were identified through hand-searching, resulting in 98 articles included in this review. See details of the literature search and reasons for exclusion in the PRISMA flowchart in Figure 1 . Most studies were performed in the US (n = 65), followed by United Kingdom (n = 7), The Netherlands (n = 6), Australia (n = 6), Canada (n = 4), Germany (n = 3), Norway (n = 2), Thailand (n = 2), Hong Kong (n = 1), Chile (n = 1), and Taiwan (n = 1). Almost half of the studies were published in the past four years (see Figure 2 ). The most frequently used wearable technologies were the StepWatch (Modus Health, Edmonds, Santa Monica, CA, USA) [4, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 42, 44, 46, [48] [49] [50] [51] 54, 57, 58, 61, 64, 65, 69, 73, [77] [78] [79] 84, [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [94] [95] [96] 98, 100, 101, 110, [114] [115] [116] , ActiGraph (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL, USA) [29, 31, 32, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 70, 75, [80] [81] [82] [83] 92, 105, 109] , FitBit (FitBit, San Francisco, CA, USA) [34, 40, 52, 76, 108, 117] , and activPAL (PAL Technologies, Glasgow, Scotland, UK) [26, 36, 37, 68, 91, 103, 104] . Nine studies used a custom sensor design [41, 60, 74, 102, 106, 107, 109, 112, 113] , six studies used pedometers [56, 59, 71, 72, 99, 113] , and one monitored physical activity with a mobile phone [118] . Six studies added a Global Positioning System (GPS) device in addition to the activity monitors [54, 103, 105, 110, 114] . Other wearable technologies used in the included studies were TEMEC activity monitor (Temec Technologies BV, Heerlen, The Netherlands) [63, 67] , Dynaport ADL (McRoberts BV, The Hague, The Netherlands) [62, 119] , Power Walker (Yamax Health & Sports Inc., Shropshire, UK) [85] , EmpowerGO (Hanger Inc., Austin, TX, USA) [24] , Up move (Jawbone, San Francisco, CA, USA) [35] , Activ 8 (VitaMove, Veldhoven, The Netherlands) [38] , Uptimer (National Ageing Research Institute, Victoria, Australia) [66] , AMP 331 (Dynastream Innovations, Cochrane, AB, Canada) [97] , and the MiniMods Dynaport (McRoberts BV, The Hague, The Netherlands) [33] . Two studies used an accelerometer, but did not specify the manufacturer [55, 93] . The articles were structured into four categories, based on the primary reason for using wearable technology: observational studies (n = 46), interventional studies (n = 34), algorithm/method development studies (n = 12), and validity/feasibility studies (n = 6). Of the 46 included observational studies, 13 studies aimed to describe characteristics of real-world behavior [21, 26, 33, 40, 60, 63, 66] , real-world measurements in a specific population [44, 50, 62] , or at a specific moment in time, such as post-rehabilitation [21, 45, 50] , or during a mountaineering expedition [59] . Four studies observed changes in real-world behavior over time, including changes between before and during the COVID-19 pandemic [24, 27] , during in-patient and leave periods [36] , and before and after prosthetic disuse [25] . One study investigated the effect of various prosthetic accommodation durations [35] . Additionally, 28 studies investigated the correlation between real-world measurements and other variables, such as performance-based measures [28, 33, 34, 37, 38, 47, 50, 53, 56, 61] , self-reported outcomes [4, 26, 33, 35, 42, 49, 61, 67] , K-level [45, 48, 58] , measures of gait quality [64] , fall and injury incidence [30] , aerobic capacity [28] , demographic factors [26, 61] , limb fluid volume [43] , clinical scores [62] , comorbidities [47] , stride-to-stride fluctuations [53] , step variability [56] , and prosthetists' perceptions of participants' prosthetic use [41] . Eight studies performed comparisons between groups, based on the etiology of amputation [26] , level of amputation [51] , K-level [46, 52, 57] , surgery treatments [55, 66] , and chronic physical condition [60] . Other studies compared participants with and without diabetes [29, 47, 65] , and fallers with non-fallers [54] . Additionally, several studies compared participants with LLA with able-bodied controls [29, 47, 63, 64, 67, 109] . Of the interventional studies, 28 studies compared prosthetic components, including feet [73, 78, 79, 82, 88, 93, 95, 99] , knee systems [80, 85, 87, 89, 92, 96] , ankle systems [68, 70, 90] , ankle-knee systems [69] , liners [71, 72, 101] , suspension systems [86, 94] , pylons [100] , socket [83, 91] , a prosthetic alignment adapter [76] , and one study compared both pylons and knee systems [98] . The remaining 6 articles were lifestyle intervention studies, targeting physical activity [75, 81] , walking capacity [84] , rehabilitation [74] , mobility and aerobic exercise training [97] , and physical activity and weight management [77] . Only one interventional study investigated the relationship between real-world measurements and other variables, i.e., performance-based measures, self-reported outcomes, metabolic cost [70] . The 12 studies classified as algorithm/method development studies, aimed to develop and/or implement algorithms/models to classify activities [102] [103] [104] 111] , monitor and categorize the load regime [102, [111] [112] [113] , to combine GPS information with ambulatory activity data [105, 110] , to quantify cadence variability [108] , and to incorporate doffing and donning information [109] . Two other studies developed a sensor design for monitoring limb-socket displacements [106, 107] . The majority of the six validity/feasibility studies investigated the accuracy or validity of commercial activity monitors [114, 115, 117, 119] or mobile phones [118] . One study tested the feasibility of a computerized algorithm to rate participants' K-level [116] . Table 1 gives an overview of each article included in the review, structured according to study design category. The reported outcome measures related to real-world ambulation were merged into eight categories: step count, fitness and intensity of activity, type of activity and body posture, commercial scores, prosthetic use and fit, gait quality, GPS, and accuracy. Step Count Seventy-two articles reported on step count. The majority reported the number of steps taken per day [4, [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, [49] [50] [51] 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] 75, [77] [78] [79] 81, 82, 84, 86, [89] [90] [91] 93, [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] 101, 105, 110, 114, 117] . However, articles also reported the number of steps for other time units, such as per week [76, 85, 100] , per weekend-and weekend-day [21, 42, 49, 62, 76, 85, 98, 100] , per month and season [58] , or total steps during the observation period [21, 35, 52, 54, 57, 59, 94, 102, 112, 113, 115] . Step count was also reported in combination with other variables of walking activity, such as number of steps per intensity activity [49, 90] , per walking technique [59] , per walking bout [24, 105] , per activity classification [102, 112] , or the maximal number of consecutive steps taken [33] . Some articles reported on step count related to location, such as number of steps taken at home and away from home [70, 105, 110] , per community category [54, 57] , or the difference in steps between a day inpatient and a day out-patient [36] . Step counts were also reported to demonstrate a difference between participant groups [4, 26, 29, 31, 32, 37, 40, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, [54] [55] [56] 64, 65, 68, 75, 77, 81, 84, 105, 110] , between different types of activity monitors [115] , or between baseline and follow-up measurements [24, 40, 50, 68, 77, 81, 84, 89, 93, 96, 97] . Thirty articles reported outcome measures that were related to a person's fitness level or the intensity of the measured activity. The majority of the studies measured the cadence in steps per minute, which is an indication of ambulatory intensity [120] . Sixteen articles reported the time, frequency, or number of steps in specific intensity intervals, based on the parameters cadence or acceleration [4, 21, 27, 28, 45, 47, 49, 51, 61, 62, 81, 90, 95, 101, 117, 118] . The number of intensity intervals and cut-off values were diverse, although most studies used the intensity intervals for low, medium, and high intensity activity. Some studies additionally included the time or frequency spent sedentary, i.e., inactivity [21, 28, 45, 47, 81, 101] . Four articles demonstrated cadence distribution, by visualizing cadence per walking bouts categorized according to duration and number of bouts [86] , or by quantifying the cadence variability [34, 69, 108] . Five articles reported the most intensive walking activity, by reporting the maximum or peak values of cadence averaged for a certain time-frame, such as the average cadence of the most intensive 60 min, 30 min, or 1 min [28, 51, 61, 108, 114] . Parameters related to activity intensity and fitness other than cadence, were walking speed [70, 105] , heart rate [63, 67] , or the acceleration of body movements in m/s 2 or g (=9.81 m/s 2 ) units [62, 63, 67, 119] . Two articles reported the cadence variability scale parameter, which was a calculation of the distribution spread of cadence variability over the duration of the observation period [34, 108] . Twenty-six articles reported outcome measures that were related to the type of activity or body posture. To what extent the activity was specified varied among studies. Ten articles reported only the amount of activity and/or inactivity in duration, percentage or number of bouts, without further specifying for the type of activity [38, 60, 61, 77, 83, 92, 93, 95, 98, 113] . Articles that specified the type of activity, reported activities such as stepping, walking, sitting, lying, standing, or other activities [24, 37, 41, 43, 62, 63, [66] [67] [68] 80, 91, 109, 119] . Two articles included an additional specification by classifying walking activity into different categories, such as turns [102] or directional locomotion [112] . Three articles reported the number of sit-to-stand transitions [26, 63, 67] . Fifteen articles reported a commercial score, or a score based on a custom calculation. Three articles reported a commercial score of the K-level [87, 88, 114] . Three articles reported a commercial score that indicated level of physical activity, i.e., the physical activity index [62] , modus index [69] , ambulation energy index [69] , peak performance index [69] , and Fitbit activity score [117] . The latter article also reported the Fitbit Web derived miles walked, calories, and number of floors climbed. However, since the commercial score did not account for height, weight and age of the users, the authors also developed a custom model for calculation of calories and the activity score including these variables [117] . Six articles reported a custom calculated score. Two articles calculated the K-level, using the three variables potential to ambulate, cadence variability and energy expenditure [48, 116] . In addition, Orendurff et al. [116] reported a clinically judged K-level by a prosthetist, who subjectively rated the three variables in figures from the StepWatch data. Three articles reported the distance walked, of which two calculated distances using the clinically assessed step length multiplied by daily step count [33, 96] . Darter et al. [97] reported distance walked and walking speed, but did not further describe the calculation. Eleven articles reported outcome measures related to prosthetic use and prosthetic fit. Five articles reported results on the duration that the prosthesis was worn, although using diverse terms [26, 27, 39, 41, 101] . Three studies included counts of doffing the prosthesis [41, 109] , or the duration of the prosthesis doffed [83] . Outcome measures related to prosthetic fit aimed to monitor displacement of the socket to the limb after wearing the prosthesis, and were measured through sensor pressure change or sensor signal loss during the wearing period [106, 107] . Seven studies reported outcome measures that were related to gait quality. Davis-Wilson et al. [29] assessed cumulative loading during ambulation that was calculated by the formula: daily steps/2 × peak ground reaction force, the latter was measured with a force plate and normalized to body weight. Kim et al. [105] calculated stride length from the three-dimensional position of the foot using IMU data. Frossard et al. [112, 113] reported in two articles temporospatial parameters, i.e., the duration of the gait cycle, swing and support phases, and kinetic parameters, i.e., the forces, moments and impulses along the anteroposterior, mediolateral, and long axis of the prosthesis to categorize ADL activities into different locomotory activities. Two articles developed an algorithm to indicate gait quality, i.e., Kaufman et al. [80] calculated so-called gait entropy, and Gaunaurd et al. [74] developed a Machine Learning Classifier that gave biofeedback related to balance, toe load and knee flexion. Kaluf et al. [69] reported stance/swing time, that was calculated with the ModusTrex software. Six studies included GPS data in addition to ambulatory activity measurements, however only five reported GPS-related results. Jamieson et al. [103] used GPS to record elevation data in the Strava app (Strava Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA), to aid with labelling uphill and downhill movement, but did not report data directly related to GPS data. Kim et al. [70, 105] used a GPS-enabled smartphone in two studies in which non-sedentary periods were identified from the raw data and combined with the location to determine where the activity occurred. Results of daily steps, cadence and walking speed were divided into measures at home and away from home. Godfrey et al. [114] used GPS data to confirm whether steps were taken in the home or in the community to calculate the Modified Clinical K-level. In two other studies from Hordacre et al. [54, 57] , a GPS travel recorder was combined with a StepWatch to specify community activity into seven categories: employment, residential, commercial, health services, recreational, social, and home. Four articles reported outcome measures of accuracy that were directly related to the wearable technology used. Griffiths et al. [104] reported F-scores and confusion matrices for eight different models that classified the postures sitting, standing, stepping and lying. Accordingly, Jamieson implemented classifiers and a neural network for activity recognition using eight models and three levels of label resolution [103] . They reported classification accuracy, F1-scores, and confusion matrices for the two models with the highest accuracy and the accuracy of the models for each participant with LLA [103] . Redfield et al. reported on the agreement between activity classification using one or two accelerometers [111] , and van Dam et al. [119] reported the test-retest reliability of activity monitor by identical assessments on two separate days. The most frequent reported outcome measure category was step count, followed by outcome measures related to fitness/intensity of activity (Table 2 ). The overall purpose of this scoping review was to survey the scientific literature to evaluate the use of wearable activity monitors in reporting real-world ambulation and prosthetic use in people with LLA. The results demonstrate that the number of studies using wearable technologies is rising, hence it is important to understand the opportunities and limitations in the use of these devices. By classifying the included articles according to their study design, we demonstrated that the number of algorithm/method development studies and validity/feasibility studies was relatively low, most likely because these studies are challenging to perform in the real world and hence are more often conducted in the laboratory [10] . The majority of the studies using wearable technologies in the real world were observational and interventional studies. This is not surprising, as wearable technologies enable monitoring a person's natural behavior and allow for observation over time, or assessment to the effect of an intervention. Although there exists a large battery of performance-based tests that can detect changes in physical functions and capacity [121] , real-world measurements have revealed that capacity is not necessarily the same as performance [34, 37] . Studies have shown that half of older community dwelling adults classified by clinic-based tests as high functional capacity, exhibit low functional level behavior in the community [48] . The use of wearable technology in the real world extends the understanding of a person's natural behavior by monitoring parameters that have not been feasible to perform in-laboratory. This review identified multiple outcome measures that are available to monitor since the use of wearable technologies in the real world. The most frequent reported outcome measure was daily step count, which is an indication of the level of physical activity. Results of multiple studies have demonstrated that the majority of people with LLA do not meet the recommended level of physical activity [16] . Lower levels of physical activity in this population is associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases [122] , and lower perceived quality of life [123] . Monitoring physical activity may facilitate the development of personalized treatments that optimize the individual health status. Step count is also used to calculate cadence (steps min −1 ), a measure that is closely related to walking speed and hence, indicates the intensity of walking [124] . Walking intensity classified in intervals provides valuable information about the structure of daily walking activity. For instance, Kim et al. [105] showed that people with LLA and able-bodied control persons had a similar variance in walking intensity, but the LLA group had a more positively skewed distribution of intensity, indicating that both groups had similar ranges of intensity, but that the LLA group took more of their steps at lower cadence. The cadence variability, i.e., the ability to walk at multiple speeds, is considered an important determinant of functional mobility and hence community ambulation. Some studies used cadence to report the upper boundaries of physical activity [28, 46, 51, 61, 108, 114] . Peak values of performed physical activity are an indication of a person's fitness and ability to perform high-intensity physical activity. This is important, because previous research demonstrated that a larger amount of high intensity physical activity is associated to higher cardiorespiratory fitness [28] . Despite the scarce evidence on this topic, the results indicate that assessment of the most intensive physical activity performed in the real world can be a valuable measure to assess overall health status. Other identified outcome measures in this review were related to prosthetic use and information about the environment in which the prosthesis is used. The amount and structure of prosthetic use is directly related to the amount of prosthetic ambulation, which again, is an indication of prosthetic fit and trust in the prosthesis. For instance, studies have shown that donning and doffing the prosthesis influences limb fluid volume, and temporarily doffing the socket is necessary to facilitate limb fluid volume recovery that is retained during subsequent activity [107, 109] . However, Balkman et al. [41] argue that frequent donning and doffing of the prosthesis can be an indication of a poorly fitted prosthesis, that can cause skin problems on the stump. Monitoring when, how and how much a person uses the prosthesis can provide valuable information to clinicians about prosthetic fit and functioning. To investigate the amount and location of prosthetic use in the community, multiple studies have used GPS and found that ambulatory patterns outside the home are different from inside the home [70, 105] . Ambulation away from home requires a higher level of functional mobility, because it generally covers larger distances, and is influenced by environmental factors such as obstacles, terrain, and variable weather conditions [54, 57] . Jamieson et al. [103] used recordings from a chest-mounted camera in addition to GPS data to determine the type of terrain that participants walked over. They observed variation among the participants, i.e., some participants walked on certain terrains that other participants avoided or rarely walked over, such as sandy terrain [103] . Hence, assessment of the amount and patterns of community activity is important in prosthesis prescription and to examine the ability for participation in the society, which is an important determinant of quality of life [54] . By categorizing the identified outcome measures in this review, we were able to obtain a clear overview of which categories were reported in different study design. The results showed that of the eight categories, the category step count was the most frequent reported category, regardless of the study design. It is, however, arguable whether step count is an appropriate outcome measure for different research questions. To obtain a sufficient degree of construct validity in a study, it is important that the chosen outcome measures reasonably represent what it intends to measure. A surprising observation in this review is that 82% of the interventional studies report one or multiple outcome measures related to step count, however, the majority of the studies did not find a significant effect of the intervention on daily step count [70] [71] [72] [73] 76, 78, 82, 85, 86, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, [98] [99] [100] . For instance, Klute et al. [116] measured improvements in kinematic and metabolic walking efficiency in laboratory tests using a microprocessor knee versus a hydraulic knee, but reported no change in real-world ambulatory patterns. Accordingly, Andrysek et al. [85] showed no difference in step count between an automatic stance-phase lock knee (ASPL) and a weight-activated braking knee, despite the lower energy expenditure measured for the ASPL knee. Moreover, participants in this study rated the ASPL knee higher in terms of knee stability and improved walking, which could be interpreted as encouraging factors for prosthetic use, but this did not result in increased step count. Segal et al. [90] demonstrated that participants wearing a torsion adapter tended to take more low-and medium-intensity steps, but fewer high-intensity steps compared to a rigid adapter. However, total daily step count was not different between the adapters, indicating that the structure of walking might change, but not the total amount of ambulation [90] . According to Wurdeman et al. [82] , changing a prosthesis will change the biomechanics of the individual, such as the step length, but not the behavior and daily routines that mainly determine the number of steps walked. Yet, interventions targeting behavior change, such as physical activity level, have neither demonstrated significant increases in daily step count [75, 77] . A few studies have shown small increases immediately after the intervention, but these effects disappeared on the long-term [81, 84] . Imam et al. [84] demonstrated a long-term improvement in walking capacity, but the intervention did not result in participants increasing their physical activity level. Hence, it is suggested that it is the individual's willingness to change or changes in daily routines that can lead to behavior change, rather than any enabling technology or intervention [101] . Likewise, observational studies that aim to gain understanding of mobility are sometimes limited in construct validity. Anderson et al. [31] found no difference in daily step count between fallers and non-fallers, indicating that number of steps is not necessarily a determinant for falls. The participants experienced falls mostly caused by intrinsic destabilization sources, inadequate weight shift patterns, and transfer-related functional activities, i.e., factors that are related to balance, and it would therefore be more likely to detect a between-group difference in parameters related to balance [31] . Overall, our findings demonstrate the often-used outcome measure step count has limited ability to detect changes in walking behavior, and this might have consequences on a study's construct validity. Hence, researchers should consider whether they capture the relevant information when designing their studies. The challenge whether sampled information is representative of the investigated situation was earlier demonstrated in the representative design developed by Brunswik [125] . The representative design, which is a methodological approach to achieve generalizability of results, requires researchers to sample information that is representative of the 'target ecology', and to specify how those conditions are represented in the experiment. Building on this approach, we encourage researchers to define what they are interested in to measure in their experiments and reflect on whether the selected outcome measure might answer their research question. Additionally, we recommend researchers to elaborate more precisely on the limitations of the reported outcome measures to avoid misinterpretation of the results. As discussed earlier, in-laboratory studies of the mobility of people with LLA are often limited in the extent that study findings can be generalized to real-world situations [5] . Measurements in the real world may overcome some of the limitations of in-laboratory testing, enhancing the ecological validity of the studies. According to the definition of Martin T. Orne, ecological validity refers to the generalization of experimental findings to the real world outside the laboratory [126] . Despite the increasing popularity of studying people with LLA outside the laboratory, ecological validity is a rarely discussed topic in the field of prosthetic mobility [127] . Among the included studies in this review, only four studies mentioned the term ecological validity, without specifying what the terms implies and how it is relevant with regards to the interpretation of their results [59, 73, 78, 112] . This concern was earlier expressed by Holleman et al. [128] in the field of social sciences where there is an ongoing debate about the definition of ecological validity and how to enhance the understanding of human behavior in the real world. There seems to be no agreement upon a definition in the literature, nor any form of classification or quantitative approach to determine or evaluate a study's ecological validity. Holleman et al. [128] describe that technological advances have further stimulated researchers to emphasize the importance of studying human behavior in the real world. However, they additionally argue that labeling an experiment as 'ecological valid' because it is conducted in a 'real-world' environment can lead to misleading and potentially counterproductive conclusions [128] . Therefore, they highlight the importance of developing and criticizing the contemporary framework of ecological validity. The contemporary framework for evaluation of ecological validity includes the dimensions stimuli, tasks, behaviors, and research context that can be evaluated on a continuum of artificiality versus naturality and simplicity versus complexity. Whereas the in-clinic environment is characterized by its artificiality and simplicity, the real world is at the other extreme and is characterized by its naturality and complexity. With respect to the included studies in this review that monitor prosthetic ambulation in the real world, the environment is in principle higher in ecological validity compared to laboratory studies. Namely, the study subjects perform their normal behavior, without receiving instructions and without any other demand characteristics that can influence their behavior. However, based on the results of this review, we believe that the contemporary wearable technologies are limited in the ability to capture the essential information of real-world ambulation. This review demonstrated a poor diversity of reporting outcome measures, in particular studies using commercial devices rather than custom-developed devices were limited to reporting step count or the intensity of activity. Therefore, we wish to introduce some suggestions to the future development of wearable technologies. First, we observed that few studies included essential determinants of community ambulation, such as parameters related to prosthetic fit or gait quality (11% and 7% of the included articles, respectively). Research has demonstrated that gait symmetry and step length, i.e., indications of gait quality, are associated with performance-based measures [129] , and that walking capacity is associated with walking performance in the community [28, 61] . Hence, gait quality might also be associated with the amount and structure of community ambulation. Therefore, technological development and advancement of wearable sensors should include outcome measures of gait quality of prosthetic ambulation. Second, we observed that parameters related to balance, which is an important determinant of prosthetic mobility [130] , are not yet included in the features of the contemporary wearable technology, though several studies have demonstrated that balance confidence is associated with the level of community activity and participation [42, 49] . Hence, future research should investigate the potentials of including parameters related to balance in advancement of wearable technologies. Last, mobility involves dimensions that are challenging to quantify, such as pain, fear, motivation, confidence, or other psychosocial aspects [3, 32] . Enhancing the understanding of the complexity of prosthetic mobility in daily life may facilitate further development of wearable technologies for the purpose of monitoring ambulatory behavior in this population. As such, we recommend future researchers to utilize studies that investigate prosthetic mobility in daily life using a holistic approach, such as performed by e.g., Hafner et al. [8] , Batten et al. [3] , and Miller et al. [32] . On the other hand, we recognize that the complexity of real-world ambulation and diversity in human behavior might go beyond the potentials of technology. Yet, technological advancements that aims to integrate more variables that are important determinants of prosthetic mobility can enhance the opportunities to capture essential information of real-world ambulation. First, our review was limited to English publications only, and may have excluded important studies published in other languages. Second, the classification of articles based on study design was performed by the two reviewers and judged according to the aim of the study. Many studies had multiple study objectives that could be considered under different study designs, such as interventional studies that in addition had objectives that were essentially observational, or algorithm/development studies that also included a form of accuracy assessment. However, we believe the classification of study designs used in the present review, is appropriate for describing the main objective of each study. Third, the synthesis of outcome measures categories was a subjective evaluation by the reviewers. The large variety in outcome measures and related units may have caused somewhat overlap between categories. For instance, cadence was considered as an indication of walking intensity, although it is in essence based on the number of steps. However, we believed that the category step count was more related to the level of physical activity, while the intensity of activity is more related to the structure of walking throughout the day. Last, our concern regarding the extent that reported outcome measures can answer the study's research question was based on an overall evaluation of all studies included in this review. To judge each individual study goes beyond the scope of a scoping review [128] . Yet, we believe that our evaluation was sufficient to emphasize the need to report outcome measures that capture the essential information of real-world ambulation of people with LLA. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review that presents the reported outcome measures in studies of real-world ambulation in people with LLA. We identified that the most frequent used outcome measure was related to step count, regardless of study design. We have expressed our concerns that step count might not be a reliable outcome measure to detect change of an intervention, as step count is highly dependent on a person's daily routine. Other important outcome measures were less reported, such as outcome measures related to the type of activity, or the intensity of activity. Only few studies reported outcome measures related to gait quality or prosthetic fit. In future research, we encourage researchers to reflect on whether the selected outcome measures are representative of the investigated situation, and to elaborate on the limitations of the reported outcome measures. Additionally, we argue that the contemporary technology is limited in providing a comprehensive picture of real-world ambulation. In future development of wearable technologies, we encourage researchers to integrate variables that are important determinants of prosthetic mobility. Furthermore, as the use of wearable technology in the real world is expected to further increase, we encourage researchers in the rehabilitation sciences to engage in the debate and development of the definition and framework of ecological validity. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Available online SwedeAmp-the Swedish Amputation and Prosthetics Registry: 8-year data on 5762 patients with lower limb amputation show sex differences in amputation level and in patient-reported outcome What are the barriers and enablers that people with a lower limb amputation experience when walking in the community? Activity levels among lower-limb amputees: Self-report versus step activity monitor Validity in clinical research: A review of basic concepts and definitions Fall detection in individuals with lower limb amputations using mobile phones: Machine learning enhances robustness for real-rorld applications Consensus based framework for digital mobility monitoring Characterizing mobility from the prosthetic limb user's perspective: Use of focus groups to guide development of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers Reliability and validity of commercially available wearable devices for measuring steps, energy expenditure, and heart rate: Systematic review Motel, I. The efficacy of wearable activity tracking technology as part of a weight loss program: A systematic review Consumer-based wearable activity trackers increase physical activity participation: Systematic review and meta-analysis The use of wearable technology to monitor physical activity in patients with COPD: A literature review Activity monitors for increasing physical activity in adult stroke survivors The validity and reliability of consumergrade activity trackers in older, community-dwelling adults: A systematic review A scoping review of physical activity in people with lower-limb loss: 10,000 steps per day? Technology for monitoring everyday prosthesis use: A systematic review The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Outcome Measures Used in Studies to Real-World Ambulation in People with a Lower Limb Amputation: A Scoping Review Protocol Step activity monitor: Long-term, continuous recording of ambulatory function Updating search strategies for systematic reviews using EndNote Rayyan-A web and mobile app for systematic reviews Understanding changes in physical activity among lower limb prosthesis users: A COVID-19 case series Prosthetic disuse leads to lower balance confidence in a long-term user of a transtibial prosthesis Patterns of sitting, standing, and stepping after lower limb amputation Impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on physical activity and quality of life in adults with lower limb amputation Relationship between level of daily activity and upper-body aerobic capacity in adults with a lower limb amputation Cumulative loading in individuals with non-traumatic lower limb amputation, individuals with diabetes mellitus, and healthy individuals [abstract Quantifying the risk of falls and injuries for amputees beyond annual fall rates-A longitudinal cohort analysis based on person-step exposure over time Falls after dysvascular transtibial amputation: A secondary analysis of falling characteristics and reduced physical performance Psychosocial factors influence physical activity after dysvascular amputation: A convergent mixed-methods study Maximal walking distance in persons with a lower limb amputation Performance-based outcome measures are associated with cadence variability during community ambulation among individuals with a transtibial amputation Evaluation of gait variable change over time as transtibial amputees adapt to a new prosthesis foot Daily step count of British military males with bilateral lower limb amputations: A comparison of in-patient rehabilitation with the consecutive leave period between admissions Correlation between functional ability and physical activity in individuals with transtibial amputations: A cross-sectional study Relation between the amount of daily activity and gait quality in transfemoral amputees Physical function and pre-amputation characteristics explain daily step count after dysvascular amputation Daily step counts and use of activity monitors by individuals with lower-limb loss [abstract Prosthetists' perceptions of information obtained from a lower-limb prosthesis monitoring system: A pilot study Self-reported functional mobility, balance confidence, and prosthetic use are associated with daily step counts among individuals with a unilateral transtibial amputation Residual limb fluid volume change and volume accommodation: Relationships to activity and self-report outcomes in people with trans-tibial amputation Daily step counts in service members with lower limb amputation [abstract The Impact of the immediate postoperative prosthesis on patient mobility and quality of life after transtibial amputation Developing an evidence based approach to address functional level changes in persons following amputation [abstract Physical activity, ambulation, and comorbidities in people with diabetes and lower-limb amputation Functional level assessment of individuals with transtibial limb loss: Evaluation in the clinical setting versus objective community ambulatory activity Balance confidence and activity of community-dwelling patients with transtibial amputation Physical activity in adults with diabetes following prosthetic rehabilitation. Can Comparison of prosthetic outcomes between adolescent transtibial and transfemoral amputees after Sichuan earthquake using Step Activity Monitor and Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire Real-world walking performance of individuals with lower-limb amputation classified as medicare functional classification level 2 and 3 Step activity and stride-to-stride fluctuations are negatively correlated in individuals with transtibial amputation Community activity and participation are reduced in transtibial amputee fallers: A wearable technology study Gait outcome of pediatric lower extremity amputation patients with and without skin grafts [abstract Physical activity, functional capacity, and step variability during walking in people with lower-limb amputation Use of an activity monitor and GPS device to assess community activity and participation in transtibial amputees Long-term activity in and among persons with transfemoral amputation Spatiotemporal parameters and Step Activity of a specialized stepping pattern used by a transtibial amputee during a denali mountaineering expedition Ambulation of people with lower-limb amputations: Relationship between capacity and performance measures Physical activity levels after limb salvage surgery are not related to clinical scores-objective activity assessment in 22 patients after malignant bone tumor treatment with modular prostheses Daily physical activity and heart rate response in people with a unilateral traumatic transtibial amputation Risk of plantar ulceration in diabetic patients with single-leg amputation Walking performance in people with diabetic neuropathy: Benefits and threats Function and upright time following limb salvage, amputation, and rotationplasty for pediatric sarcoma of bone Daily physical activity and heart rate response in people with a unilateral transtibial amputation for vascular disease STEPFORWARD study: A randomised controlled feasibility trial of a self-aligning prosthetic ankle-foot for older patients with vascular-related amputations Hydraulic-and microprocessor-controlled ankle-foot prostheses for limited community ambulators with unilateral transtibial amputation: Pilot study The influence of powered prostheses on user perspectives, metabolics, and activity: A randomized crossover trial Sustainable Development: A Below-Knee Prostheses Liner for Resource Limited Environments affordable and functional: Reimagining prosthetic liners in resource limited environments The effect of prosthetic foot stiffness on foot-ankle biomechanics and relative foot stiffness perception in people with transtibial amputation The effectiveness of the DoD/VA mobile cevice outcomes-based rehabilitation program for high functioning service members and veterans with lower limb amputation Biobehavioral intervention targeting physical activity behavior change for older veterans after nontraumatic amputation: A randomized controlled trial Can improved prosthetic alignment increase activity level in patients with lower-extremity amputations? [abstract Pilot randomized trial of a telephone-delivered physical activity and weight management intervention for individuals with lower extremity amputation Laboratory-and community-based health outcomes in people with transtibial amputation using crossover and energy-storing prosthetic feet: A randomized crossover trial Energy expenditure in people with transtibial amputation walking with crossover and energy storing prosthetic feet: A randomized within-subject study Functional assessment and satisfaction of transfemoral amputees with low mobility (FASTK2): A clinical trial of microprocessor-controlled vs. non-microprocessor-controlled knees Behaviorchange intervention targeting physical function, walking, and disability after dysvascular amputation: A randomized controlled pilot trial Step activity and 6-Minute Walk Test outcomes when wearing low-activity or high-activity prosthetic feet Effects of socket size on metrics of socket fit in trans-tibial prosthesis users A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility of the Wii Fit for improving walking in older adults with lower limb amputation Long-term clinical evaluation of the automatic stance-phase lock-controlled prosthetic knee joint in young adults with unilateral above-knee amputation Prosthesis management of residual-limb perspiration with subatmospheric vacuum pressure Effects of the Genium knee system on functional level, stair ambulation, perceptive and economic outcomes in transfemoral amputees Biomechanical characteristics, patient preference and activity level with different prosthetic feet: A randomized double blind trial with laboratory and community testing Physical performance and self-report outcomes associated with use of passive, adaptive, and active prosthetic knees in persons with unilateral, transfemoral amputation: Randomized crossover trial Does a torsion adapter improve functional mobility, pain, and fatigue in patients with transtibial amputation? Measuring the daily stepping activity of people with transtibial amputation using the ActivPAL™ Activity Monitor Influence of advanced prosthetic knee joints on perceived performance and everyday life activity level of low-functional persons with a transfemoral amputation or knee disarticulation Application of self-report and performance-based outcome measures to determine functional differences between four categories of prosthetic feet Vacuum-assisted socket suspension compared with pin suspension for lower extremity amputees: Effect on fit, activity, and limb volume A Comparison of Gait Kinetics between Prosthetic Feet during Functional Activities-Symmetry in External Work (SEW) Approach Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee The Effects of an Integrated Motor Learning Based Treadmill Mobility and Aerobic Exercise Training Program in Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation Prosthetic intervention effects on activity of lowerextremity amputees The effects of prosthetic foot design on physiologic measurements, selfselected walking velocity, and physical activity in people with transtibial amputation Efficacy of shock-absorbing versus rigid pylons for impact reduction in transtibial amputees based on laboratory, field, and outcome metrics Quantification of prosthetic outcomes: Elastomeric gel liner with locking pin suspension versus polyethylene foam liner with neoprene sleeve suspension Locomotor activities of individuals with lower-limb amputation Human activity recognition of individuals with lower limb amputation in free-living conditions: A pilot study A machine learning classification model for monitoring the daily physical behaviour of lower-limb amputees Wearable sensors quantify mobility in people with lower limb amputation during daily life Development of a magnetic composite material for measurement of residual limb displacements in prosthetic sockets Instrumented socket inserts for sensing interaction at the limb-socket interface Method to quantify cadence variability of individuals with lower-limb amputation Monitoring prosthesis user activity and doffing using an activity monitor and proximity sensors Global position sensing and step activity as outcome measures of community mobility and social interaction for an individual with a transfemoral amputation due to dysvascular disease Classifying prosthetic use via accelerometry in persons with transtibial amputations Categorization of activities of daily living of lower limb amputees during short-term use of a portable kinetic recording system: A preliminary study Monitoring of the load regime applied on the osseointegrated fixation of a trans-femoral amputee: A tool for evidence-based practice The accuracy and validity of Modus Trex Activity Monitor in determining functional level in veterans with transtibial amputations Step count accuracy of StepWatch and FitBit One TM among individuals with a unilateral transtibial amputation Comparison of a computerized algorithm and prosthetists' judgment in rating functional levels based on daily step activity in transtibial amputees Monitoring daily function in persons with transfemoral amputations using a commercial activity monitor: A feasibility study Monitoring functional capability of individuals with lower limb amputations using mobile phones Measuring physical activity in patients after surgery for a malignant tumour in the leg. The reliability and validity of a continuous ambulatory activity monitor How fast is fast enough? Walking cadence (steps/min) as a practical estimate of intensity in adults: A narrative review Outcome measures used in lower extremity amputation: Review of clinical use and psychometric properties Why traumatic leg amputees are at increased risk for cardiovascular diseases Physical activity and quality of life: A study of a lower-limb amputee population Using cadence to study free-living ambulatory behaviour Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology Ecological validity and "Ecological validity Metabolic energy expenditure of ambulation in lower extremity amputees: What have we learned and what are the next steps? The 'Real-World Approach' and its problems: A critique of the term ecological validity Gait asymmetry is associated with performance-based physical function among adults with lower-limb amputation Instrumented measurement of balance and postural control in individuals with lower limb amputation: A critical review The authors thank Kari Kalland (Head Librarian, Oslo Metropolitan University) for providing assistance in the systematic literature search. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Artificial Limbs/or exp Amputation/ 2 (amput * or prosthe * or prothes * or "artificial limb *").ti,ab. 3(limb adj3 (remov* or loss)).ti,ab. 4 1 or 2 or 3 5 gait/or gait analysis/ 6 Walking/ 7 (gait or step or steps or stepping or cadence or walk or walking or ambulat * or activit * or mobility or performance).ti,ab. 8 5 or 6 or 7 9Monitoring, Ambulatory/ 10 (monitor * or track * or quantif * or assess * or measur * or count or counting or stepwatch or fitbit or acceleromet* or pedomet * or sensor or actigraph or IMU * or "inertial sensor" or "inertial measurement unit*").ti,ab. 11 9 or 10 12 lower extremity/or ankle/or knee/or leg/or thigh/ 13 ("lower limb *" or "lower extremit *" or transfem * or trans-fem * or transtibial or trans-tibial or "above knee" or "below knee").ti,ab. 14 12 or 13 15 4 and 8 and 11 and 14 16 limit 15 to yr = "1999-Current"