Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32093540›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2020

Biarticular muscles in light of template models, experiments and robotics: a review.

C Schumacher, M Sharbafi, A Seyfarth, C Rode

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intramuscular Fat Infiltration and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C SchumacherLauflabor Locomotion Laboratory, Centre for Cognitive Science, Institute of Sport Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
M SharbafiLauflabor Locomotion Laboratory, Centre for Cognitive Science, Institute of Sport Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
A SeyfarthLauflabor Locomotion Laboratory, Centre for Cognitive Science, Institute of Sport Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
C RodeMotion and Exercise Science, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Technische Universität Darmstadt · DEUniversity of Stuttgart · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leg morphology is an important outcome of evolution. A remarkable morphological leg feature is the existence of biarticular muscles that span adjacent joints. Diverse studies from different fields of research suggest a less coherent understanding of the muscles' functionality in cyclic, sagittal plane locomotion. We structured this review of biarticular muscle function by reflecting biomechanical template models, human experiments and robotic system designs. Within these approaches, we surveyed the contribution of biarticular muscles to the locomotor subfunctions (

Indexed as

RoboticsArmBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansLegMuscle, Skeletalassistive devicesbiarticular musclesbiomechanical template modelslegged roboticsleg morphologylocomotor subfunctions

Identifiers

PMID32093540
PMCPMC7061696
OpenAlexW3007488297

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.