ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2026
Reliability assessment of power wheelchairs.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and assess new reliability performance measures for wheelchair devices using reliability engineering methods and compare them across wheelchair models. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsThis retrospective study analyzes wheelchair repair data from n = 1092 power wheelchairs prescribed by the National Health Service (NHS) through the West of Scotland Mobility and Rehabilitation Centre (WestMARC) between December 2007 and October 2013 in Greater Glasgow, Scotland, UK. This dataset was received by The Ohio State University in 2022, and repairable systems reliability analysis was performed.
interventionsNot applicable. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reliability performance measures derived from the reliability engineering modeling of the mean cumulative number of repairs included Repair Trend, Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), and a Wheelchair Reliability Index (WRI). It was hypothesized that there are no differences in the repair distributions between standard and complex wheelchair seating models in the dataset, and repair distributions of models stratified by age into two groups: adults and seniors. Additionally, the relationships between recurrent repair events and demographics were tested.Results: Four wheelchair models were analyzed: two standard (S1, S2) and two complex (C1, C2) seating models. Models S2 and C2 demonstrated a linear repair trend, while the other two had an exponential one. Consistent with previous evidence, the complex seating models had significantly different repair distribution and lower reliability compared to standard seating models,
conclusionThis is the first study, to the authors' knowledge, that modeled wheelchair field failure data to develop reliability performance measures and compare the reliability of standard and complex seating power wheelchair models. The study found a lower overall MTBF value, indicating that all study wheelchairs demonstrate poor reliability and require condition inspections every 3-6 months. Individuals requiring the highest level of care utilize complex seating wheelchair models and deserve enhanced wheelchair reliability and safety. Our study findings underscore the urgent need for reliability performance monitoring and subsequent improvements in the areas of wheelchair selection, standards, servicing innovation, and provision systems.
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.