ArticleAmerican journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation2022
Clinical and Ergonomic Comparison Between a Robotic Assisted Transfer Device and a Mobile Floor Lift During Caregiver-Assisted Wheelchair Transfers.
Article in American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe robotic assisted transfer device was developed as an updated lift technology to reduce adjustments in posture while increasing capabilities offered by transfer devices. The purpose of this study was to compare the trunk biomechanics of a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift in the transfer of a care recipient by a caregiver during essential transfer tasks.
methodsInvestigators enrolled 28 caregiver/care recipient dyads to complete 36 transferring tasks. Surface electromyography for the back muscles and motion data for trunk range of motion were collected for selected surfaces, phase, and direction tasks using a robotic assisted transfer device and a mechanical floor lift.
resultsRobotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller range of trunk flexion (P < 0.001), lateral bend (P < 0.001), and axial rotation (P = 0.01), in addition to smaller distance covered (P < 0.001), average instantaneous velocity (P = 0.01), and acceleration (P < 0.001) compared with a mobile floor lift. The robotic assisted transfer device transfers required significantly smaller peak erector spinae (left: P = 0.001; right: P < 0.001) and latissimus dorsi (right: P < 0.001) and integrated erector spinae left (P = 0.001) and latissimus dorsi right (P = 0.01) electromyography signals compared with the floor lift.
conclusionsThe robotic assisted transfer device provides additional benefits to mobile floor lifts which, coupled with statistically lower flexion, extension, and rotation, may make them an appealing alternative intervention.
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.