Wang Hongwu, Liu Hsin-Yi, Pearlman Jon, Cooper Rosemarie, Jefferds Alexandra, Connor Sam, Cooper Rory A
Human Engineering Research Laboratories, VA Rehabilitation Research & Development Service, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206, USA.
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(5):318-22. doi: 10.3109/17483100903391137.
To investigate the relationship between the durability of wheelchairs according to American National Standard for Wheechairs/Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (ANSI/RESNA) Wheelchair Standards and wheelchair type as well as year of test.
A retrospective study design with a sample of 246 wheelchairs that were tested in accordance with the ANSI/RESNA standards from 1992 to 2008 including four types of wheelchairs: manual wheelchair (MWC), electrical powered wheelchair (EPW), scooters and pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair (PAPAW). Unconditional binary logic regression analysis was chosen to evaluate the relationship between test results and test year as well as wheelchair type.
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center.
Wheelchair durability test result (fatigue test: pass or fail)
There was no significant correlation between the year when tested and equivalent cycles. A significant relation was found between test results and wheelchair type (Wald score = 10.845, degree of freedom = 3, p = 0.013) with scooters having a significantly higher pass ratio than MWC (OR = 15.629, 95% CI = 2.026-120.579). EPW also had significantly higher pass ratio than MWC (OR = 1.953, 95% CI = 1.049-3.636). No significant difference on pass ratio was found between PAPAW and MWC.
No significant improvements in wheelchair test results during the time frame from 1992 to 2008 were discovered. Wheelchair standard tests should be conducted to assure minimum quality of the wheelchairs and for improving the design of wheelchairs. Although the ANSI/RESNA wheelchair durability test procedures have remained consistent, it does not appear that the introduction of new materials, designs and the availability of test data have improved wheelchair fatigue life.
根据美国国家标准《轮椅/北美康复工程与辅助技术协会(ANSI/RESNA)轮椅标准》,研究轮椅耐用性与轮椅类型以及测试年份之间的关系。
一项回顾性研究设计,样本为1992年至2008年按照ANSI/RESNA标准进行测试的246辆轮椅,包括四种类型的轮椅:手动轮椅(MWC)、电动轮椅(EPW)、踏板车和轮辋驱动动力辅助轮椅(PAPAW)。采用无条件二元逻辑回归分析来评估测试结果与测试年份以及轮椅类型之间的关系。
康复工程研究中心。
轮椅耐用性测试结果(疲劳测试:通过或未通过)
测试年份与等效循环次数之间无显著相关性。发现测试结果与轮椅类型之间存在显著关系(Wald评分=10.845,自由度=3,p=0.013),踏板车的通过率显著高于手动轮椅(OR=15.629,95%可信区间=2.026-120.579)。电动轮椅的通过率也显著高于手动轮椅(OR=1.953,95%可信区间=1.049-3.636)。轮辋驱动动力辅助轮椅与手动轮椅的通过率无显著差异。
在1992年至2008年期间,未发现轮椅测试结果有显著改善。应进行轮椅标准测试,以确保轮椅的最低质量并改进轮椅设计。尽管ANSI/RESNA轮椅耐用性测试程序保持一致,但新材料、设计的引入以及测试数据的可用性似乎并未提高轮椅的疲劳寿命。