ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2023
Mechanical assessment of novel compliant mechanisms for underactuated prosthetic hands.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional evaluation of a real-time EMG controlled prosthetic hand.Wearable technologies · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper proposes novel compliant mechanisms for constructing hand prostheses based on soft robotics. Two models of prosthetic hands are developed in this work. Three mechanical evaluations are performed to determine the suitability of the two designs for carrying out activities of daily living (ADLs). The first test measures the grip force that the prosthesis can generate on objects. The second determines the energy required and dissipated from the prosthesis to operate. The third test identifies the maximum traction force that the prosthesis can support. The tests showed that the PrHand1 prosthesis has a maximum grip force of 23.38 ± 1.5 N, the required energy is 0.76 ± 0.13 J, and the dissipated energy is 0.21 ± 0.17 J. It supports a traction force of 173.31 ± 5.7 N. The PrHand2 prosthesis has a maximum grip force of 36.13 ± 2.3 N, the required energy is 1.28 ± 0.13 J, the dissipated energy is 0.96 ± 0.12 J, and it supports a traction force of 78.48 ± 0 N. In conclusion, the PrHand1 prosthesis has a better performance in terms of energy and tensile force supported. The difference between the energy and traction force results is related to two design features of the PrHand2: fully silicone-coated fingers and a unifying mechanism that requires more force on the tendons to close the prosthesis. The grip force of the PrHand2 prosthesis was more robust than the PrHand1 due to its silicone coating, which allowed for an improved grip.
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.