ArticlePloS one2024
Effects of a passive upper-body exoskeleton on whole-body kinematics, leg muscle activity, and discomfort during a carrying task.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptation to a Whole-Body Powered Exoskeleton: Human-Exoskeleton Coordination During Load-Handling Tasks.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Biomechanical and physiological effects of a passive upper-body exoskeleton during stair ascent and descent.PloS one · 2026Article
- Biomechanical and physiological effects of an upper-body exoskeleton during simulated load-carrying on an inclined surface.PloS one · 2025Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare whole-body kinematics, leg muscle activity, and discomfort while performing a 10-min carrying task with and without a passive upper-body exoskeleton (CarrySuitⓇ), for both males and females.
backgroundDiverse commercial passive exoskeletons have appeared on the market claiming to assist lifting or carrying task. However, evidence of their impact on kinematics, muscle activity, and discomfort while performing these tasks are necessary to determine their benefits and/or limitations.
methodSixteen females and fourteen males carried a 15kg load with and without a passive exoskeleton during 10-min over a round trip route, in two non-consecutive days. Whole-body kinematics and leg muscle activity were evaluated for each condition. In addition, leg discomfort ratings were quantified before and immediately after the task.
resultsThe gastrocnemius and vastus lateralis muscle activity remained constant over the task with the exoskeleton. Without the exoskeleton a small decrease of gastrocnemius median activation was observed regardless of sex, and a small increase in static vastus lateralis activation was observed only for females. Several differences in sagittal, frontal, and transverse movements' ranges of motion were found between conditions and over the task. With the exoskeleton, ROM in the sagittal plane increased over time for the right ankle and pelvis for both sexes, and knees for males only. Thorax ROMs in the three planes were higher for females only when using the exoskeleton. Leg discomfort was lower with the exoskeleton than without.
conclusionThe results revealed a positive impact on range of motion, leg muscle activity, and discomfort of the tested exoskeleton.
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.