Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33501319›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in robotics and AI2020

Occurrence and Type of Adverse Events During the Use of Stationary Gait Robots-A Systematic Literature Review.

Jule Bessler, Gerdienke B Prange-Lasonder, Robert V Schulte, Leendert Schaake, Erik C Prinsen, Jaap H Buurke

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Relevance of hazards in exoskeleton applications: a survey-based enquiry.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  8. Overview of the role of robots in upper limb disabilities rehabilitation: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jule BesslerRoessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.
Gerdienke B Prange-LasonderRoessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.
Robert V SchulteRoessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.
Leendert SchaakeRoessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.
Erik C PrinsenRoessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.
Jaap H BuurkeRoessingh Research and Development, Enschede, Netherlands.
Roessingh Research and Development · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) devices are used in rehabilitation to improve patients' walking function. While there are some reports on the adverse events (AEs) and associated risks in overground exoskeletons, the risks of stationary gait trainers cannot be accurately assessed. We therefore aimed to collect information on AEs occurring during the use of stationary gait robots and identify associated risks, as well as gaps and needs, for safe use of these devices. We searched both bibliographic and full-text literature databases for peer-reviewed articles describing the outcomes of stationary RAGT and specifically mentioning AEs. We then compiled information on the occurrence and types of AEs and on the quality of AE reporting. Based on this, we analyzed the risks of RAGT in stationary gait robots. We included 50 studies involving 985 subjects and found reports of AEs in 18 of those studies. Many of the AE reports were incomplete or did not include sufficient detail on different aspects, such as severity or patient characteristics, which hinders the precise counts of AE-related information. Over 169 device-related AEs experienced by between 79 and 124 patients were reported. Soft tissue-related AEs occurred most frequently and were mostly reported in end-effector-type devices. Musculoskeletal AEs had the second highest prevalence and occurred mainly in exoskeleton-type devices. We further identified physiological AEs including blood pressure changes that occurred in both exoskeleton-type and end-effector-type devices. Training in stationary gait robots can cause injuries or discomfort to the skin, underlying tissue, and musculoskeletal system, as well as unwanted blood pressure changes. The underlying risks for the most prevalent injury types include excessive pressure and shear at the interface between robot and human (cuffs/harness), as well as increased moments and forces applied to the musculoskeletal system likely caused by misalignments (between joint axes of robot and human). There is a need for more structured and complete recording and dissemination of AEs related to robotic gait training to increase knowledge on risks. With this information, appropriate mitigation strategies can and should be developed and implemented in RAGT devices to increase their safety.

Indexed as

adverse event (AE)injuries (MeSH)physical human-robot interaction (pHRI)rehabilitation roboticsrobot-assisted gait trainingsafetystationary gait robots

Identifiers

PMID33501319
PMCPMC7805916
OpenAlexW3099011048

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.