Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39985039›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025

Improving research and development of wearable assistive and rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review on diversity factors.

Mariya Lorke, Thekla Stefanou

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Mariya LorkeFaculty of Engineering and Mathematics, University of Applied Sciences and Arts (HSBI), Bielefeld, 33619, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1201-427X
Thekla StefanouFaculty of Engineering and Mathematics, University of Applied Sciences and Arts (HSBI), Bielefeld, 33619, Germany. thekla.stefanou@hsbi.de.ORCID 0000-0002-9979-7800

Funding

Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of NRW, Germany PROFILNRW-2020-095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper analyses diversity and intersectionality aspects in the R&D of wearable assistive and rehabilitation technologies (WEARTechs). We advocate for inclusive, innovative research that we hope will help bridge the gap between laboratories and the real world and reduce disparities in healthcare and technology development. We performed a systematic literature review of the intersections between assistive technologies and diversity and conducted a thematic analysis of the diversity factors identified in the literature. In addition, we carried out a supplementary literature search on WEARTechs to discover which, if any, diversity aspects are currently being reported on. Our findings indicate that diversity has not been addressed in the field of WEARTechs. There is not sufficient knowledge to determine, which diversity-related aspects researchers must consider when evaluating the performance of any specific WEARTech device. Nor about how these can be properly addressed in the R&D process. We, therefore, provide actionable recommendations on how to integrate diversity-relevant aspects at different R&D stages. We hope that our review will help scientists rethink and reformulate approaches to the R&D of WEARTechs and build the way towards more inclusive solutions. It is our belief that this will spark innovation and enhance discovery potential in the field.

Indexed as

Self-Help DevicesWearable Electronic DevicesHumansAssistive technologyDiversityEthical considerationsExoskeletonIntersectionalityR&DRehabilitation technologyUser experienceWearable technology

Identifiers

PMID39985039
PMCPMC11844098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.