Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39711332›Full record

ReviewArtificial organs2025

Consumer views of functional electrical stimulation and robotic exoskeleton in SCI rehabilitation: A mini review.

Yalian Pei, Mari Tobita, Benjamin Dirlikov, Dannae Arnold, Candace Tefertiller, Ashraf Gorgey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Artificial organs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yalian PeiDepartment of Communication Disorders and Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.
Mari TobitaDepartmentof Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center, Downey, California, USA.
Benjamin DirlikovRehabilitation Research Center, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California, USA.
Dannae ArnoldResearch Institute, Baylor Scott & White Institute for Rehabilitation, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Candace TefertillerResearch Department, Craig Hospital, Englewood, Colorado, USA.
Ashraf GorgeyDepartment of Veterans Affairs, Hunter Holmes McGuire Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFunctional electrical stimulation (FES) and robotic exoskeletons represent emerging technologies with significant potential for restoring critical physical functions such as standing and walking-functions that are most susceptible after spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the further development and successful integration of these technologies into clinical practice and daily life require a deep understanding of consumer perspectives.

objectiveThis review synthesizes consumer perspectives from a diverse range of technology stakeholders, including medical service providers, researchers, and persons affected by SCI-those living with SCI and their caregivers. By capturing this diverse range of perspectives, the review aims to describe the real-world implications, challenges, and expectations associated with FES and robotic exoskeleton technologies.

methodsRelevant literature was primarily identified through a search in EBSCO, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. The authors supplemented the search by reviewing reference lists including appropriate articles identified by the authors. The PICO question guiding this process was defined as P (persons with SCI and caregivers, researchers, clinicians, and developers), I (use of FES or robotic exoskeletons), C (technology users compared to non-users), and O (stakeholder perspectives and experiences). Each identified article underwent a thorough appraisal, after which findings were summarized to present consumers' viewpoints on FES and robotic exoskeleton technologies.

resultsThe review focuses on key areas such as perceived benefits, limitations, implementation barriers, and consumer expectations. The benefits identified are multifaceted, extending from physical improvements, such as enhanced mobility and muscle strength, to psychological gains including increased confidence and sense of independence. However, these technologies also face perceived limitations, often related to accessibility, cost, and usability challenges. Beyond technical issues, implementation barriers are related to factors like insurance coverage and the need for specialized training for both users and providers. Consumer expectations include hope for technological advancements, increased accessibility and affordability, and a desire for more personalized and adaptable solutions tailored to the unique needs of individuals with SCI.

conclusionThis comprehensive overview of consumer perspectives offers insights into the needs and preferences of the end-users, which are essential for creating user-centric technology and effectively translating research findings into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorElectric Stimulation TherapyExoskeleton DeviceRoboticsSpinal Cord InjuriesHumansconsumeremerging technologyimplementation barrierneurorehabilitationSCIspinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID39711332
PMCPMC12019081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.