ArticleInvestigacion y educacion en enfermeria2025
Care provided by humanoid robots: a scoping review.
Article in Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify the evidence in the literature regarding the care provided to the population by humanoid robots. Methods: A scoping review based on the guidelines established by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) checklist was followed. The review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework under the number osf.io/6ur93. The search was conducted in November 2023 in the following databases: PubMed®, EMBASE®, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus®, and CINAHL, as well as in the gray literature, including Google Scholar and the Catalog of Theses and Dissertations of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), using the search strategy: "humanoid robot*" AND "patient*". Results: A total of 27 articles were analyzed. Most of the identified studies were conducted in hospital settings (n=13), with a primary focus on adults (n=10) and children (n=8). The countries with the highest number of publications were Japan (n=6), Canada (n=5), and France (n=4). Three areas of care were identified: social interaction (n=17), physical rehabilitation (n=7), and dissemination of health information (n=3). Additionally, only four studies involved collaboration between humanoid robots and healthcare providers. Conclusion: Despite the increasing use of humanoid robots in healthcare, it remains essential to enhance their integration with professionals in the field. Social interaction highlighted the need to improve patient care, underscoring the importance of aligning the capabilities of these robots with the expertise of healthcare providers. Accordingly, future research should focus on developing strategies that ensure this technology not only assists but also optimizes the quality of care and strengthens interdisciplinary collaboration.
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.