Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40644222›Full record

ArticleIEEE ... International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics : [proceedings]2025

User Field Testing for Robot Wheelchairs: A Mixed-Method Approach.

Jorge L Candiotti, Sivashankar Sivakanthan, Benjamin Gebrosky, Rosemarie Cooper, Rory A Cooper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE ... International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics : [proceedings], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Jorge L Candiotti
Sivashankar Sivakanthan
Benjamin Gebrosky
Rosemarie Cooper
Rory A Cooper

Funding

RRD VA I50 RX002998RRD VA IK2 RX003806RRD VA IK6 RX003916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enhancing mobility and independence for electric power wheelchair (EPW) users is often hindered by architectural barriers. Robotic wheelchairs with innovative mechanisms offer potential solutions, but current technologies are typically confined to lab evaluations with limited user input. This study employed a mixed-method approach to assess the effectiveness of a legged-wheel robotic wheelchair compared to standard EPWs in indoor and outdoor environments. Driving metrics, usability assessments, and user feedback were collected. EPW users found the robotic wheelchair challenging to learn, however, its overall usability and effectiveness in meeting their mobility needs were comparable to their EPWs. The robotic wheelchair also demonstrated improved stability and reduced vibration on uneven terrains. Feedback highlighted the benefits of robotic wheelchair applications when accessibility is not available compared to existing EPWs. Furthermore, participants suggested improvement of seating functions, better maneuverability in tight spaces, and enhanced indoor accessibility similar to EPWs. While standardized tools confirmed the robotic wheelchair's effectiveness compared to existing EPWs, user perceptions are essential to validate these findings. The study concludes that robotic wheelchairs can enhance outdoor safety and comfort but must integrate fundamental functions of existing EPWs to support users' health and indoor mobility.

Indexed as

RoboticsWheelchairsAdultEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40644222
PMCPMC12462711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.