ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Dynamic and Static Assistive Strategies for a Tailored Occupational Back-Support Exoskeleton: Assessment on Real Tasks Carried Out by Railway Workers.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiological and perceptual effects of two passive back-support exoskeletons during repetitive lifting in healthy adults.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Advances in Wearable Technologies for the In-Field Assessment of Biomechanical Risk.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The perceptual and biomechanical effects of scaling back exosuit assistance to changing task demands.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- From the idea to the user: a pragmatic multifaceted approach to testing occupational exoskeletons.Wearable technologies · 2025Article
- Methodology for the knowledge-based selection of occupational exoskeletons.Production engineering : research and development · 2025Article
- Multi-Exoskeleton Performance Evaluation: Integrated Muscle Energy Indices to Determine the Quality and Quantity of Assistance.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study on occupational back-support exoskeletons performs a laboratory evaluation of realistic tasks with expert workers from the railway sector. Workers performed both a static task and a dynamic task, each involving manual material handling (MMH) and manipulating loads of 20 kg, in three conditions: without an exoskeleton, with a commercially available passive exoskeleton (Laevo v2.56), and with the StreamEXO, an active back-support exoskeleton developed by our institute. Two control strategies were defined, one for dynamic tasks and one for static tasks, with the latter determining the upper body's gravity compensation through the Model-based Gravity Compensation (MB-Grav) approach. This work presents a comparative assessment of the performance of active back support exoskeletons versus passive exoskeletons when trialled in relevant and realistic tasks. After a lab characterization of the MB-Grav strategy, the experimental assessment compared two back-support exoskeletons, one active and one passive. The results showed that while both devices were able to reduce back muscle activation, the benefits of the active device were triple those of the passive system regarding back muscle activation (26% and 33% against 9% and 11%, respectively), while the passive exoskeleton hindered trunk mobility more than the active mechanism.
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.