ArticleCanadian prosthetics & orthotics journal2024
Active, Actuated, and Assistive: a Scoping Review of Exoskeletons for the Hands and Wrists.
Article in Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review of Soft Robotic Gloves and Functional Electrical Stimulation Affecting Hand Function Rehabilitation for Stroke Patients.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Electromyography Signal Acquisition, Filtering, and Data Analysis for Exoskeleton Development.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Active, Actuated, and Assistive: a Scoping Review of Exoskeletons for the Hands and Wrists.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssistive technology is often incorporated into rehabilitation and support for those impacted by upper limb impairments. When powered, these devices provide additional force to the joints of users with muscle weakness. Actuated devices allow dynamic movement compared to splints, therefore improving the ability to complete activities of daily living. However, these devices are not often prescribed and are underrepresented in research and clinical settings.
objectiveThis review examined the existing literature on devices developed to support hand and wrist functionality in daily activities. Focusing on active, powered, and actuated devices, to gain a clearer understanding of the current limitations in their design and prescription. METHODOLOGY: The scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and NHS the Knowledge Network from inception to May 2023. Articles were included if the device was portable; supported the hands and wrist actively using an actuator; and could be used for assistive living during or post-rehabilitation period.
findingsA total of 135 studies were included in the analysis of which 34 were clinical trials. The design and control methods of 121 devices were analyzed. Electrical stimulation and direct mechanical transmission were popular actuation methods. Electromyography (EMG) and joint movement detection were highly used control methods to translate user intentions to device actuation. A total of 226 validation methods were reported, of which 44% were clinically validated. Studies were often not conducted in operational environments with 69% at technology readiness levels ≤ 6, indicating that further development and testing is required.
conclusionThe existing literature on hand and wrist exoskeletons presents large variations in validation methods and technical requirements for user-specific characteristics. This suggests a need for well-defined testing protocols and refined reporting of device designs. This would improve the significance of clinical outcomes and new assistive technology.
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.