ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2023
Evaluation of Power Wheelchair Dynamic Suspensions for Tip Prevention in Non-ADA Compliant Surfaces.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- User Field Testing for Robot Wheelchairs: A Mixed-Method Approach.IEEE ... International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics : [proceedings] · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the driving performance and usability of a mobility enhancement robot (MEBot) wheelchair with 2 innovative dynamic suspensions compared with commercial electric powered wheelchair (EPW) suspensions on non-American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant surfaces. The 2 dynamic suspensions used pneumatic actuators (PA) and electro-hydraulic with springs in series electrohydraulic and spring in series (EHAS).
designWithin-subjects cross-sectional study. Driving performance and usability were evaluated using quantitative measures and standardized tools, respectively.
settingLaboratory settings that simulated common EPW outdoor driving tasks.
participants10 EPW users (5 women, 5 men) with an average age of 53.9±11.5 years and 21.2±16.3 years of EPW driving experience (N=10).
interventionNot applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Seat angle peaks (stability), number of completed trials (effectiveness), Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST), and systemic usability scale (SUS).
resultsMEBot with dynamic suspensions demonstrated significantly better stability (all P<.001) than EPW passive suspensions on non-ADA-compliant surfaces by reducing seat angle changes (safety). Also, MEBot with EHAS suspension significantly completed more trials over potholes compared with MEBot with PA suspension (P<.001) and EPW suspensions (P<.001). MEBot with EHAS had significantly better scores in terms of ease of adjustment (P=.016), durability (P=.031), and usability (P=.032) compared with MEBot with PA suspension on all surfaces. Physical assistance was required to navigate over potholes using MEBot with PA suspension and EPW suspensions. Also, participants reported similar responses regarding ease of use and satisfaction toward MEBot with EHAS suspension and EPW suspensions.
conclusionsMEBot with dynamic suspensions improve safety and stability when navigating non-ADA-compliant surfaces compared with commercial EPW passive suspensions. Findings indicate MEBot readiness for further evaluation in real-world environments.
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.