ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Physiological and perceptual effects of two passive back-support exoskeletons during repetitive lifting in healthy adults.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePassive back-support exoskeletons (PBEs) are wearable devices designed to reduce strain during physical labor, e.g., repetitive lifting. This study investigated acute effects of two PBEs on cardiac load, energy expenditure, neuromuscular activity, and perceived exertion during repetitive lifting.
methodsTwenty-six healthy adults performed a standardized lifting task under three conditions: without exoskeleton (FREE), with a rigid PBE (RIGID), and with a soft PBE (SOFT). Cardiac load was assessed via impedance cardiography and blood pressure; energy expenditure via respiratory gas analysis; and neuromuscular activity via surface electromyography. Subjective ratings of exertion and comfort were collected before, during, and after the task. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analyses of variances and mixed-effects models, all followed by post-hoc tests.
resultsBoth exoskeletons reduced rate-pressure product (RIGID: −8.1%, p = 0.001; SOFT: −6.5%, p = 0.003), energy expenditure (RIGID: −13.9%, p < 0.0001; SOFT: −9.4%, p < 0.0001), and perceived exertion (RIGID: −14.4%, p < 0.001; SOFT: −9.5%, p = 0.034) compared to FREE. Only RIGID reduced gluteus maximus muscle activation (− 21%, p = 0.005). No significant changes were observed in trunk or abdominal muscles. Wearing comfort declined post-task for both devices. No differences occurred between PBEs across all parameters.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that rigid and soft PBEs consistently reduce physiological and perceptual demands during lifting. By integrating central and peripheral hemodynamic measures, we extend understanding of cardiac unloading. Long-term field studies are needed to assess whether these benefits persist in real-world settings and contribute to musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health.
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.