{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021493212669683258, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004524886877828055, 'mean_word_length': 5.432727272727273, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of the energy costs with use of different types of manual wheelchair in disabled persons.

SUMMARY
The energy cost of physical activity is a well-documented field of research both in non-disabled subjects and in subjects with physical disabilities, in particular spinal cord lesions. The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate the energy cost and subjective fatigue in disabled persons who make daily use of a manual wheelchair by comparing three different types of wheelchair (standard, lightweight and ultra-light) in order to obtain indices useful for prescribing the most effective and appropriate wheelchairaid for the individual patient. The study was carried out on 18 patients affected by paraplegia or paraparesis due to spinal cord injury at different levels. Result revealed a significant difference across the three types of wheelchair, with the energy expenditure to cover 100 m increasing from the ultra-light (lowest expenditure) to the lightweight to the standard type (highest expenditure). The differences observed in the average energy consumed to cover a distance of 100 meters with the three types of wheelchair confirm the hypothesis that it is the weight of the wheelchair chosen by the rehabilitation team together with the patient that constitutes the fundamental criterion in making such a prescription. Obviously, in making the final choice, other factors as well need to be taken into account, such as the person's age and anthropometric characteristics, the nature of the disability and prognosis, the achievable degree of autonomy, functional capacities, personal preferences, the type of use (domestic or external), accessibility, reliability and durability, esthetic features, eventual accessories available, etc.