Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35737733›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Manual wheelchair biomechanics while overcoming various environmental barriers: A systematic review.

Théo Rouvier, Aude Louessard, Emeline Simonetti, Samuel Hybois, Joseph Bascou, Charles Pontonnier, Hélène Pillet, Christophe Sauret

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparison of Muscle Load, Comfort, Usability, and Time-On-Task Across 3 Wheelchair Handle Orientations and Ground Types: A Randomized Crossover Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Théo RouvierInstitut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0474-8326
Aude LouessardInstitut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8371-0937
Emeline SimonettiInstitut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, Paris, France.
Samuel HyboisComplexité Innovation Activités Motrices et Sportives, Faculté des Sciences du Sport, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France.
Joseph BascouInstitut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, Paris, France.
Charles PontonnierUniversité de Rennes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Institut de Recherche en Informatique et Systèmes Aléatoires-Unité Mixte de Recherche 6074, Rennes, France.
Hélène PilletInstitut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, Paris, France.
Christophe SauretInstitut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During manual wheelchair (MWC) locomotion, the user's upper limbs are subject to heavy stresses and fatigue because the upper body is permanently engaged to propel the MWC. These stresses and fatigue vary according to the environmental barriers encountered outdoors along a given path. This study aimed at conducting a systematic review of the literature assessing the biomechanics of MWC users crossing various situations, which represent physical environmental barriers. Through a systematic search on PubMed, 34 articles were selected and classified according to the investigated environmental barriers: slope; cross-slope; curb; and ground type. For each barrier, biomechanical parameters were divided into four categories: spatiotemporal parameters; kinematics; kinetics; and muscle activity. All results from the different studies were gathered, including numerical data, and assessed with respect to the methodology used in each study. This review sheds light on the fact that certain situations (cross-slopes and curbs) or parameters (kinematics) have scarcely been studied, and that a wider set of situations should be studied. Five recommendations were made at the end of this review process to standardize the procedure when reporting materials, methods, and results for the study of biomechanics of any environmental barrier encountered in MWC locomotion: (i) effectively reporting barriers' lengths, grades, or heights; (ii) striving for standardization or a report of the approach conditions of the barrier, such as velocity, especially on curbs; (iii) reporting the configuration of the used MWC, and if it was fitted to the subject's morphology; (iv) reporting rotation sequences for the expression of moments and kinematics, and when used, the definition of the musculoskeletal model; lastly (v) when possible, reporting measurement uncertainties and model reconstruction errors.

Indexed as

WheelchairsArchitectural AccessibilityBiomechanical PhenomenaFatigueHumansLocomotion

Identifiers

PMID35737733
PMCPMC9223621

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.