BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

242 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15370732)

  • 1. Energy expenditure in stroke subjects walking with a carbon composite ankle foot orthosis.
    Danielsson A; Sunnerhagen KS
    J Rehabil Med; 2004 Jul; 36(4):165-8. PubMed ID: 15370732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Decreased energy cost and improved gait pattern using a new orthosis in persons with long-term stroke.
    Thijssen DH; Paulus R; van Uden CJ; Kooloos JG; Hopman MT
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2007 Feb; 88(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 17270515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of an ankle-foot orthosis on spatiotemporal parameters and energy cost of hemiparetic gait.
    Franceschini M; Massucci M; Ferrari L; Agosti M; Paroli C
    Clin Rehabil; 2003 Jul; 17(4):368-72. PubMed ID: 12785244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Oxygen consumption, oxygen cost and physiological cost index in polio survivors: a comparison of walking without orthosis, with an ordinary or a carbon-fibre reinforced plastic knee-ankle-foot orthosis.
    Hachisuka K; Makino K; Wada F; Saeki S; Yoshimoto N
    J Rehabil Med; 2007 Oct; 39(8):646-50. PubMed ID: 17896057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Is transcutaneous peroneal stimulation beneficial to patients with chronic stroke using an ankle-foot orthosis? A within-subjects study of patients' satisfaction, walking speed and physical activity level.
    van Swigchem R; Vloothuis J; den Boer J; Weerdesteyn V; Geurts AC
    J Rehabil Med; 2010 Feb; 42(2):117-21. PubMed ID: 20140406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Measurement of energy cost by the physiological cost index in walking after stroke.
    Danielsson A; Willén C; Sunnerhagen KS
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2007 Oct; 88(10):1298-303. PubMed ID: 17908572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of different shoes on functional mobility and energy expenditure in post-stroke hemiplegic patients using ankle-foot orthosis.
    Farmani F; Mohseni Bandpei MA; Bahramizadeh M; Aminian G; Nikoo MR; Sadeghi-Goghari M
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2016 Oct; 40(5):591-7. PubMed ID: 26184035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Long-term effect of an anterior ankle-foot orthosis on functional walking ability of chronic stroke patients.
    Hung JW; Chen PC; Yu MY; Hsieh YW
    Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2011 Jan; 90(1):8-16. PubMed ID: 20975524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Energy cost of ambulation with different methods of foot and ankle immobilization.
    Fowler PT; Botte MJ; Mathewson JW; Speth SR; Byrne TP; Sutherland DH
    J Orthop Res; 1993 May; 11(3):416-21. PubMed ID: 8326448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The physiological cost index of walking with a powered knee-ankle-foot orthosis in subjects with poliomyelitis: A pilot study.
    Arazpour M; Ahmadi Bani M; Samadian M; Mousavi ME; Hutchins SW; Bahramizadeh M; Curran S; Mardani MA
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2016 Aug; 40(4):454-9. PubMed ID: 26195618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of ankle foot orthosis stiffness on the energy cost of walking: a simulation study.
    Bregman DJ; van der Krogt MM; de Groot V; Harlaar J; Wisse M; Collins SH
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2011 Nov; 26(9):955-61. PubMed ID: 21723012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of early compensation of distal motor deficiency by the Chignon ankle-foot orthosis on gait in hemiplegic patients: a randomized pilot study.
    de Sèze MP; Bonhomme C; Daviet JC; Burguete E; Machat H; Rousseaux M; Mazaux JM
    Clin Rehabil; 2011 Nov; 25(11):989-98. PubMed ID: 21750010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effects of dynamic ankle-foot orthoses in chronic stroke patients at three-month follow-up: a randomized controlled trial.
    Erel S; Uygur F; Engin Simsek I; Yakut Y
    Clin Rehabil; 2011 Jun; 25(6):515-23. PubMed ID: 21285288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An anterior ankle-foot orthosis improves walking economy in Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 1A patients.
    Menotti F; Laudani L; Damiani A; Mignogna T; Macaluso A
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2014 Oct; 38(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 24100074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effect of stance control orthoses on gait characteristics and energy expenditure in knee-ankle-foot orthosis users.
    Davis PC; Bach TM; Pereira DM
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2010 Jun; 34(2):206-15. PubMed ID: 20470059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Use of an ankle-foot orthosis improves aerobic capacity in subacute hemiparetic stroke patients.
    Hyun CW; Kim BR; Han EY; Kim SM
    PM R; 2015 Mar; 7(3):264-9. PubMed ID: 25134853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of walking energy cost between an anterior and a posterior ankle-foot orthosis in people with foot drop.
    Menotti F; Laudani L; Damiani A; Orlando P; Macaluso A
    J Rehabil Med; 2014 Sep; 46(8):768-72. PubMed ID: 24953375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Oxygen consumption during treadmill walking with and without body weight support in patients with hemiparesis after stroke and in healthy subjects.
    Danielsson A; Sunnerhagen KS
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2000 Jul; 81(7):953-7. PubMed ID: 10896011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Weight transfer analysis in adults with hemiplegia using ankle foot orthosis.
    Nolan KJ; Yarossi M
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2011 Mar; 35(1):45-53. PubMed ID: 21515889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Association between improved trunk stability and walking capacity using ankle-foot orthosis in hemiparetic patients with stroke: evidence from three-dimensional gait analysis.
    Lan Y; Xu GQ; Huang DF; Mao YR; Chen SZ; Pei Z; Zeng JS
    Chin Med J (Engl); 2013 Oct; 126(20):3869-73. PubMed ID: 24157148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.