ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2020
Applicability of an Active Back-Support Exoskeleton to Carrying Activities.
Article 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 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-time wearable biomechanics framework for sports injury prevention and rehabilitation optimization.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Biomechanical and physiological effects of a passive upper-body exoskeleton during stair ascent and descent.PloS one · 2026Article
- Bioengineering Support in the Assessment and Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effects on muscular activity and usability of soft active versus rigid passive back exoskeleton during symmetric lifting tasks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of a Passive Back-Support Exoskeleton Mimicking Human Spine Motion for Multi-Posture Assistance in Occupational Tasks.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Human activity recognition algorithms for manual material handling activities.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A versatile knee exoskeleton mitigates quadriceps fatigue in lifting, lowering, and carrying tasks.Science robotics · 2024Article
- Fatigue assessment for back-support exoskeletons during repetitive lifting tasks.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Online Ergonomic Evaluation in Realistic Manual Material Handling Task: Proof of Concept.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Exoskeletons: Contribution to Occupational Health and Safety.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Technology Assisted Rehabilitation Patient Perception Questionnaire (TARPP-Q): development and implementation of an instrument to evaluate patients' perception during training.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Evaluating cognitive and physical work performance: A comparative study of an active and passive industrial back-support exoskeleton.Wearable technologies · 2023Article
- Soft robotics towards sustainable development goals and climate actions.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2023Article
- Dynamic assessment for low back-support exoskeletons during manual handling tasks.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Effects of back-support exoskeletons with different functional mechanisms on trunk muscle activity and kinematics.Wearable technologies · 2023Article
- Objective and subjective evaluation of a passive low-back exoskeleton during simulated logistics tasks.Wearable technologies · 2023Article
- Wearables for Biomechanical Performance Optimization and Risk Assessment in Industrial and Sports Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Exoworkathlon: A prospective study approach for the evaluation of industrial exoskeletons.Wearable technologies · 2022Article
- Ticks, Hair Loss, and Non-Clinging Babies: A Novel Tick-Based Hypothesis for the Evolutionary Divergence of Humans and Chimpanzees.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Versatile and non-versatile occupational back-support exoskeletons: A comparison in laboratory and field studies.Wearable technologies · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational back-support exoskeletons are becoming a more and more common solution to mitigate work-related lower-back pain associated with lifting activities. In addition to lifting, there are many other tasks performed by workers, such as carrying, pushing, and pulling, that might benefit from the use of an exoskeleton. In this work, the impact that carrying has on lower-back loading compared to lifting and the need to select different assistive strategies based on the performed task are presented. This latter need is studied by using a control strategy that commands for constant torques. The results of the experimental campaign conducted on 9 subjects suggest that such a control strategy is beneficial for the back muscles (up to 12% reduction in overall lumbar activity), but constrains the legs (around 10% reduction in hip and knee ranges of motion). Task recognition and the design of specific controllers can be exploited by active and, partially, passive exoskeletons to enhance their versatility, i.e., the ability to adapt to different requirements.
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.