ArticleScientific reports2025
A comprehensive assessment of a passive back support exoskeleton for load handling assistance.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Article
- Physiological and perceptual effects of two passive back-support exoskeletons during repetitive lifting in healthy adults.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Diff-MomentFormer: Generative Diffusion-Augmented Transformer for End-to-End Joint Moment Estimation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in mechanical engineering for the field of upper limb exoskeletons.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing Effectiveness of Passive Exoskeletons and Tool Selection on Ergonomic Safety in Manhole Cover Removal.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Various back support exoskeletons (BSEs) have been developed to reduce the workload and the risk of musculoskeletal disorders. However, the evaluations of such devices have primarily focused on specific quantitative aspects like muscle activation level or metabolic cost without any assessment of the user perception or comfort. In addition, the absence of an universal guidance or agreement on the methods for quantifying the efficacy of exoskeletons has hampered a systematic comparison among the developed devices. This study introduces a newly developed passive BSE for heavy load handling workers, and verifies its assistive effect through a rigorous and multifaceted evaluation. Fifteen young and healthy males participated in two experiment sessions. In the first session, participants lifted a 15 kg box and held it in a static position. In the second session, participants performed repetitive lifting tasks with a 10 kg box. The developed BSE reduced root mean square, peak, and integrated muscle activation with statistical significance in the key muscles. The BSE alleviated muscle fatigue by delaying spectral shift of instantaneous median frequency in the lumbar erector spinae (p < 0.001) and gluteus maximus (p < 0.001). The BSE also decreased energy expenditure by 13.6% (p < 0.001). In addition, the BSE reduced participants' rate of perceived exertion and local musculoskeletal discomfort by 14.7% (p = 0.005) and 30.5% (p = 0.001), respectively. These results support the efficacy of the developed BSE. The multifaceted evaluation process used in this study also contributes to proposing a systematic guidance on evaluating BSEs.
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.