Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29110728›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2017

How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: Review of NIDILRR's Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers.

David J Reinkensmeyer, Sarah Blackstone, Cathy Bodine, John Brabyn, David Brienza, Kevin Caves, Frank DeRuyter, Edmund Durfee, Stefania Fatone, Geoff Fernie and 26 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Specialty grand challenge: Rehabilitation engineering.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. JNER at 15 years: analysis of the state of neuroengineering and rehabilitation.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2019
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Research in the Acute Rehabilitation Setting: a Bridge Too Far?Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

36 authors at 18 institutions in 2 countries.

David J ReinkensmeyerUniversity of California at Irvine, Irvine, USA. dreinken@uci.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3196-8706
Sarah BlackstoneAugmentative Communication Inc., Monterey, USA.
Cathy BodineUniversity of Colorado, Denver, USA.
John BrabynThe Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francesco, USA.
David BrienzaUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA.
Kevin CavesDuke University Medical Center, Durham, USA.
Frank DeRuyterDuke University Medical Center, Durham, USA.
Edmund DurfeeUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Stefania FatoneNorthwestern University Prosthetics-Orthotics Center, Evanston, USA.
Geoff FernieToronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Steven GardNorthwestern University Prosthetics-Orthotics Center, Evanston, USA.
Patricia KargUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA.
Todd A KuikenNorthwestern University, Evanston, USA.
Gerald F HarrisMarquette University, Marquette, USA.
Mike JonesShepherd Center, Atlanta, USA.
Yue LiToronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, Canada.
Jordana MaiselUniversity at Buffalo IDeA Center, Buffalo, USA.
Michael McCueUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA.
Michelle A MeadeUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Helena MitchellGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Tracy L MitznerGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
James L PattonRehabilitation Institute of Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA.
Philip S RequejoRancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center, Downey, USA.
James H RimmerLakeshore FoundationUniversity of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
Wendy A RogersGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
W Zev RymerRehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, USA.
Jon A SanfordGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Lawrence SchneiderUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Levin SlikerUniversity of Colorado, Denver, USA.
Stephen SprigleGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Aaron SteinfeldRobotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA.
Edward SteinfeldUniversity at Buffalo IDeA Center, Buffalo, USA.
Gregg VanderheidenTrace Center, University of Maryland, College Park, Baltimore, USA.
Carolee WinsteinUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
Li-Qun ZhangNorthwestern University, Evanston, USA.
Thomas CorfmanNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, Washington, DC, USA.
Georgia Institute of Technology · USNorthwestern University · USUniversity of Michigan · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USDuke Medical Center · USShirley Ryan AbilityLab · USToronto Rehabilitation Institute · CAUniversity of Colorado Denver · USCarnegie Mellon University · USCenter for Independent Living · USLakeshore Foundation · USMarquette University · USRancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center · USShepherd Center · USSmith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

EngineeringHumansPersons with DisabilitiesRehabilitationRehabilitation ResearchResearchTechnologyDisabilityRehabilitation engineeringTechnology

Identifiers

PMID29110728
PMCPMC5674748
OpenAlexW2767920627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.