Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34488777›Full record

ReviewBiomedical engineering online2021

Robotic devices for paediatric rehabilitation: a review of design features.

Alberto Gonzalez, Lorenzo Garcia, Jeff Kilby, Peter McNair

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedical engineering online, 2021. 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
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Robotics in Physical Rehabilitation: Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Physical Rehabilitation Programs for Bedridden Patients with Prolonged Immobility: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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 1 institution in 1 country.

Alberto GonzalezBioDesign Lab, School of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Lorenzo GarciaBioDesign Lab, School of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. lorenzo.garcia@aut.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1122-497X
Jeff KilbyBioDesign Lab, School of Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Peter McNairHealth and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Auckland University of Technology · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children with physical disabilities often have limited performance in daily activities, hindering their physical development, social development and mental health. Therefore, rehabilitation is essential to mitigate the adverse effects of the different causes of physical disabilities and improve independence and quality of life. In the last decade, robotic rehabilitation has shown the potential to augment traditional physical rehabilitation. However, to date, most robotic rehabilitation devices are designed for adult patients who differ in their needs compared to paediatric patients, limiting the devices' potential because the paediatric patients' needs are not adequately considered. With this in mind, the current work reviews the existing literature on robotic rehabilitation for children with physical disabilities, intending to summarise how the rehabilitation robots could fulfil children's needs and inspire researchers to develop new devices. A literature search was conducted utilising the Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus databases. Based on the inclusion-exclusion criteria, 206 publications were included, and 58 robotic devices used by children with a physical disability were identified. Different design factors and the treated conditions using robotic technology were compared. Through the analyses, it was identified that weight, safety, operability and motivation were crucial factors to the successful design of devices for children. The majority of the current devices were used for lower limb rehabilitation. Neurological disorders, in particular cerebral palsy, were the most common conditions for which devices were designed. By far, the most common actuator was the electric motor. Usually, the devices present more than one training strategy being the assistive strategy the most used. The admittance/impedance method is the most popular to interface the robot with the children. Currently, there is a trend on developing exoskeletons, as they can assist children with daily life activities outside of the rehabilitation setting, propitiating a wider adoption of the technology. With this shift in focus, it appears likely that new technologies to actuate the system (e.g. serial elastic actuators) and to detect the intention (e.g. physiological signals) of children as they go about their daily activities will be required.

Indexed as

Cerebral PalsyExoskeleton DeviceRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultChildHumansQuality of LifeAssistanceChildrenExoskeletonsPhysical disabilityRehabilitationRobotic

Identifiers

PMID34488777
PMCPMC8420060
OpenAlexW3198736296

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.