ReviewArtificial organs2025
Consumer views of functional electrical stimulation and robotic exoskeleton in SCI rehabilitation: A mini review.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic Rehabilitation in Spinal Cord Injury: Neurophysiological Basis and Severity-Based Clinical Framework.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Assessing the Resilience of sEMG Classifiers to Sensor Malfunction and Signal Saturation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pharmacological and device-based interventions for paraplegia: A ClinicalTrials.gov-based analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Wearable technologies for assisted mobility in the real world.Nature communications · 2025Review
- Consumer views of functional electrical stimulation and robotic exoskeleton in SCI rehabilitation: A mini review.Artificial organs · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.