Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

and Orthotics: Selected articles from the Second World Congress hosted by the American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association (AOPA). The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://jneuroengrehab.biomedcentral.com/ articles/supplements/volume-15-supplement-1 . Authors ’ contributions AD interpreted the patient data and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. KM analyzed and interpreted the patient data and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. NM analyzed the patient data and was a major contributor in creating tables for the manuscript. JD interpreted the patient data and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Ethics approval and consent to participate N/A. Consent for publication N/A. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher ’ s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Published: 5 September 2018 References 1. Hubbard Winkler SL, Cowper Ripley DC, Wu S, Reker DM, Vogel B, Fitzgerald SG, Mann WC, Hoenig H. Demographic and clinical variation in veterans health administration provision of assistive technology devices to veterans poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(3):369 – 77. 2. Margolis DJ, Hoffstad O, Nafashi J, Leonard CE, Freeman CP, Hennessy S, Wiebe D. Location, location, location: geographic clustering of lower- extremity amputation among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:2363 – 7. 3. Wrobel JS, Mayfield JA, Reiber GE. Geographic variation of lower-extremity major amputation in individuals with and without diabetes in the Medicare population. Diabetes Care. 2011;24(5):860 – 4. 4. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Lewandowski A, Klenow TD, Orriola JJ, Miro RM, Hill OT, Raschke SU, Orendurff MS, Highsmith JT, et al. Economic evaluations of interventions for transtibial amputees: a scoping review of comparative studies. Technol Innov. 2016;18:85 – 98. 5. Davies S, Gibby O, Phillips C, Price P, Tyrrell W. The health status of diabetic patients receiving orthotic therapy. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(2):233 – 40. 6. Leigh R, Barker S. The effect of specialist footwear on the quality of life of patients with lower leg ulcers. Wounds UK. 2007;3(4):19 – 23. 7. Price P. The diabetic foot: quality of life. Clinical Infectious Disease. 2004; 39(2):129 – 31. 8. Samuelsson KAM, Toytari O, Salminen AL, Brandt A. Effects of lower limb prosthesis on activity, participation, and quality of life: a systematic review. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2012;36(2):145 – 58. 9. Hebert JS, Burger H. Return to work following major limb loss. In: Schultz I, Gatchel R, editors. Handbook of return to work: from research to practice. 1st ed. Boston (MA): Springer; 2016. p. 505 – 18. 10. Dobson A, El-Gamil A, Manolov N, DaVanzo J. Economic value of orthotic and prosthetic services among Medicare beneficiaries: a claims-based retrospective cohort study. Mil Med. 2016;181(2S):18 – 24. 11. Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Bongiorni DR, Sutton BS, Groer S, Kaufman KR. Safety, energy efficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-leg for transfemoral amputees: a review of the literature. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2010;34(4):362 – 77. 12. Novak D, Hooper M. Review and evaluation of LD20 an act to require insurance companies to cover the cost of prosthetics. Joint Standing Committee on Insurance and Financial Services of the 124th Maine Legislature; 2010. Available from: http://www.maine.gov/pfr/legislative/documents/LD020_ Microprocessor_Prosthetic_Study_Final.doc . Accessed 15 Dec 2017. 13. California Technology Assessment Forum. Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees: a technology assessment. 2007. Available from: https:// www.scribd.com/document/13027315/Microprocessor-Controlled- Prosthetic_Knees . Accessed 15 Dec 2017. 14. Highsmith MJ, Kahle J, Miro RM, Lura DJ, Dubey RV, Carey SL, Quillen WS, Mengelkoch LM. Perceived differences between the Genium and the C-leg microprocessor prosthetic knees in prosthetic-related function and quality of life. Technol Innov. 2014;15:369 – 75. 15. Trojano M, Pellegrini F, Paolicelli D, Fuiani A, Di Renzo V. Observational studies: propensity score analysis of non-randomized data. International MS Journal. 2009;16:90 – 7. 16. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46: 399 – 424. 17. Kuss O, Legler T, Borgermann J. Treatments effects from randomized trials and propensity score analyses were similar in similar populations in an example from cardiac surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(10):1076 – 84. 18. Dehejia R, Wahba S. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat. 2002;84(1):151 – 61. 19. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41 – 55. 20. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences i proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:150 – 61. 21. Highsmith MJ, Klenow TD, Kahle JT, Wernke MM, Carey SL, Miro RM, Lura DJ, Sutton BS. Effects of the Genium knee system on functional level, stair ambulation, perceptive and economic outcomes in transfemoral amputees. Technol Innov. 2016;18:139 – 50. 22. Dobson A., DaVanzo J. Analysis of 2010-2014 Medicare Standard Analytic Files. 2017. 23. Liu H, Chen C, Hanson M, Chaturvedi R, Mattke S, Hillestad R. Economic value of advanced transfemoral prosthetics: Rand Corporation; 2017. Available from: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_ reports/RR2000/RR2096/RAND_RR2096.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2017 Dobson et al. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2018, 15 (Suppl 1):55 Page 72 of 72