Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36717869›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

The-state-of-the-art of soft robotics to assist mobility: a review of physiotherapist and patient identified limitations of current lower-limb exoskeletons and the potential soft-robotic solutions.

Leah Morris, Richard S Diteesawat, Nahian Rahman, Ailie Turton, Mary Cramp, Jonathan Rossiter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Effect and optimal exercise prescription of robot-assisted gait training on lower extremity motor function in stroke patients: a network meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

6 authors.

Leah MorrisCentre for Health and Clinical Research, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. leah.morris@uwe.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4651-1514
Richard S DiteesawatBristol Robotics Laboratory, Bristol, UK.
Nahian RahmanBristol Robotics Laboratory, Bristol, UK.
Ailie TurtonCentre for Health and Clinical Research, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Mary CrampCentre for Health and Clinical Research, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Jonathan RossiterBristol Robotics Laboratory, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSoft, wearable, powered exoskeletons are novel devices that may assist rehabilitation, allowing users to walk further or carry out activities of daily living. However, soft robotic exoskeletons, and the more commonly used rigid exoskeletons, are not widely adopted clinically. The available evidence highlights a disconnect between the needs of exoskeleton users and the engineers designing devices. This review aimed to explore the literature on physiotherapist and patient perspectives of the longer-standing, and therefore greater evidenced, rigid exoskeleton limitations. It then offered potential solutions to these limitations, including soft robotics, from an engineering standpoint.

methodsA state-of-the-art review was carried out which included both qualitative and quantitative research papers regarding patient and/or physiotherapist perspectives of rigid exoskeletons. Papers were themed and themes formed the review's framework.

resultsSix main themes regarding the limitations of soft exoskeletons were important to physiotherapists and patients: safety; a one-size-fits approach; ease of device use; weight and placement of device; cost of device; and, specific to patients only, appearance of the device. Potential soft-robotics solutions to address these limitations were offered, including compliant actuators, sensors, suit attachments fitting to user's body, and the use of control algorithms.

conclusionsIt is evident that current exoskeletons are not meeting the needs of their users. Solutions to the limitations offered may inform device development. However, the solutions are not infallible and thus further research and development is required.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DevicePhysical TherapistsRoboticsActivities of Daily LivingHumansLower ExtremityAssistive deviceExoskeletonMobilityPatientRehabilitationSoft roboticsTherapist

Identifiers

PMID36717869
PMCPMC9885398

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.