ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2017
How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: Review of NIDILRR's Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers.
Review in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design, development and evaluation of registry software for upper limb disabilities.Healthcare technology letters · 2024Article
- The Dual Importance of Virtual Reality Usability in Rehabilitation: A Focus on Therapists and Patients.Cureus · 2024Review
- NeuroSuitUp: System Architecture and Validation of a Motor Rehabilitation Wearable Robotics and Serious Game Platform.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Requirements for Universally Accessible Upper-Body Exercise Equipment: The Case of People with Spinal Cord Injuries in Korea.Occupational therapy international · 2023Review
- Specialty grand challenge: Rehabilitation engineering.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Converging Robotic Technologies in Targeted Neural Rehabilitation: A Review of Emerging Solutions and Challenges.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A Mobile App to Optimize Social Participation for Individuals with Physical Disabilities: Content Validation and Usability Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Automated Movement Assessment in Stroke Rehabilitation.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- JNER at 15 years: analysis of the state of neuroengineering and rehabilitation.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Tracking the evolution of virtual reality applications to rehabilitation as a field of study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019Review
- Research in the Acute Rehabilitation Setting: a Bridge Too Far?Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors at 18 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a "total approach to rehabilitation", combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970's, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.