The emergence of 3D-printed upper limb prosthetic devices a couple of years ago, spearheaded substantially by the e-NABLE community (1, 2), has triggered a variety of reactions, ranging from euphoric press coverage predicting a new age of low-cost universally obtainable prosthetic solutions to anxious reluctance by clinicians fearing the demise of high-quality professional health care provision (3, 4). The circumstance that untrained volunteers produce e-NABLE devices on their hobby-grade 3D-printers (5) was both hailed as a revolutionary paradigm shift suited to address a host of current challenges in health care economics, and derided as inappropriate intrusion into long-standing training and certification standards of a well-regulated profession. That many of the early generation e-NABLE devices targeted young patients with partial hand amputation (6) was interpreted by proponents as finally offering this neglected population long-desired solutions, whereas skeptics felt that many of the recipients of such devices would traditionally have been deemed to have a residual functional enough to be a contra-indication for a prosthesis (7).Article PDF file: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/29970/22869 How to cite: Fiedler G, Savage S, Schull J, Mankoff J. The Case For Broad-Range Outcome Assessment Across Upper Limb Device Classes. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. Volume1, Issue1, No4, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i1.29970