ArticleScientific reports2025
Effects on muscular activity and usability of soft active versus rigid passive back exoskeleton during symmetric lifting tasks.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptation to a Whole-Body Powered Exoskeleton: Human-Exoskeleton Coordination During Load-Handling Tasks.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- A Causally Inspired Counterfactual Evaluation Framework for Wearable Assistive Robots.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Design and Experimental Evaluation of a Shoulder Assistive Exoskeleton for Insulator Replacement.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Low back injuries are globally prevalent among construction workers, leading to significant economic burdens. Despite various intervention strategies, their effectiveness remains uncertain. This study evaluates a lightweight active soft back exosuit (SV Exosuit) against a passive rigid exosuit (IX BACK) to assess muscle activity and usability. Fifteen healthy participants performed bending and lifting tasks under three conditions: no exosuit, with SV Exosuit, and with IX BACK. Electromyographic (EMG) signals from back extensors were collected, and subjective feedback was obtained using the NASA task load index (NASA-TLX). Results showed that the active exosuit significantly reduced mean and peak EMG levels, while the passive exoskeleton exhibited modest reductions, particularly during unloaded tasks. EMG pattern analysis indicated peak activity occurring within 30-40% of the motion cycle, with IX BACK causing delays in bending without load due to resistance. Overall, both devices alleviated muscle strain, with SV Exosuit providing superior support during loaded tasks. The findings suggest that SV Exosuit's lightweight and effective design make it a preferable option for construction tasks, highlighting the need for further research on its application in real-world settings.
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.