Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29201602›Full record

ReviewRobotics and biomimetics2017

Ethical framework of assistive devices: review and reflection.

Nazanin Mansouri, Khaled Goher, Seyed Ebrahim Hosseini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Robotics and biomimetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

Nazanin MansouriDepartment of Land Management and Systems, Lincoln University, Lincoln, Canterbury, 7647 New Zealand.
Khaled GoherSchool of Life & Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, B4 7ET UK.
Seyed Ebrahim HosseiniFaculty of Environment, Society and Design, Lincoln University, Lincoln, Canterbury, 7647 New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The population of ageing is growing significantly over the world, and there is an emerging demand for better healthcare services and more care centres. Innovations of Information and Communication Technology has resulted in development of various types of assistive robots to fulfil elderly's needs and independency, whilst carrying out daily routine tasks. This makes it vital to have a clear understanding of elderly's needs and expectations from assistive robots. This paper addresses current ethical issues to understand elderly's prime needs. Also, we consider other general ethics with the purpose of applying these theories to form a proper ethics framework. In the ethics framework, the ethical concerns of senior citizens will be prioritized to satisfy elderly's needs and also to diminish related expenses to healthcare services.

Indexed as

Assistive medical robotsAssistive walking device frameworkEthics concernsEthics issuesOlder adultsRobot ethicsRobot ethics framework

Identifiers

PMID29201602
PMCPMC5688189

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.