SynthesisAnnals of biomedical engineering2022
A Systematic Review on Evaluation Strategies for Field Assessment of Upper-Body Industrial Exoskeletons: Current Practices and Future Trends.
Synthesis in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Alterations in Physical Demands During Virtual/Augmented Reality-Based Tasks: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Pooled it
- A Systematic Review on Lower-Limb Industrial Exoskeletons: Evaluation Methods, Evidence, and Future Directions.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Pooled it
- Influence of a passive shoulder exoskeleton on drilling performance in women- a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Article
- Assessment of a Passive Exoskeleton for Neck and Lower Back Support: A Task Study on Muscle Activity and User Perceived Exertion.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Task complexity in exoskeleton setup and takedown: Procedural steps and usability problems as predictors of deployment performance.PloS one · 2026Article
- Effects on muscular activity and usability of soft active versus rigid passive back exoskeleton during symmetric lifting tasks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Biodynamic Modeling and Analysis of Human-Exoskeleton Interactions in Simulated Patient Handling Tasks.Human factors · 2025Article
- Effects of a Wearable Assistive Device on Postural Control and Stability During Symmetric and Asymmetric Intermittent Trunk Flexion Tasks.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The perceptual and biomechanical effects of scaling back exosuit assistance to changing task demands.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development of a decision model for the selection of exoskeletons for application in automotive production plants.PloS one · 2025Article
- From the idea to the user: a pragmatic multifaceted approach to testing occupational exoskeletons.Wearable technologies · 2025Article
- Passive shoulder occupational exoskeleton reduces shoulder muscle coactivation in repetitive arm movements.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- How Effective Are Forecasting Models in Predicting Effects of Exoskeletons on Fatigue Progression?Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Training and Familiarization with Industrial Exoskeletons: A Review of Considerations, Protocols, and Approaches for Effective Implementation.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Impact of a passive upper-body exoskeleton on muscular activity and precision in overhead single and dual tasks: an explorative randomized crossover study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Validation of a modified visual analogue scale to measure user-perceived comfort of a lower-limb exoskeleton.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With rising manual work demands, physical assistance at the workplace is crucial, wherein the use of industrial exoskeletons (i-EXOs) could be advantageous. However, outcomes of numerous laboratory studies may not be directly translated to field environments. To explore this discrepancy, we conducted a systematic review including 31 studies to identify and compare the approaches, techniques, and outcomes within field assessments of shoulder and back support i-EXOs. Findings revealed that the subjective approaches [i.e., discomfort (23), usability (22), acceptance/perspectives (21), risk of injury (8), posture (3), perceived workload (2)] were reported more common (27) compared to objective (15) approaches [muscular demand (14), kinematics (8), metabolic costs (5)]. High variability was also observed in the experimental methodologies, including control over activity, task physics/duration, sample size, and reported metrics/measures. In the current study, the detailed approaches, their subject-related factors, and observed trends have been discussed. In sum, a new guideline, including tools/technologies has been proposed that could be utilized for field evaluation of i-EXOs. Lastly, we discussed some of the common technical challenges experimenters face in evaluating i-EXOs in field environments. Efforts presented in this study seek to improve the generalizability in testing and implementing i-EXOs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35916980What 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.