ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Assessment of a Passive Exoskeleton for Neck and Lower Back Support: A Task Study on Muscle Activity and User Perceived Exertion.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Musculoskeletal disorders, particularly in the neck and back, are prevalent across various professions, stemming from prolonged static postures and awkward neck flexions. This study investigated the efficacy of a passive exoskeleton, designed to alleviate musculoskeletal neck and back strain, in a simulated neck flexion task. Ten participants performed tasks involving neck flexion at angles of 15°, 30°, 45°, and 60°, both with and without the exoskeleton. Additionally, the impact of using a headlight was evaluated at a 45° neck flexion angle. Wearable electromyography sensors were used to quantify muscle activity as an indicator of neuromuscular loading, while subjective discomfort was assessed using the Rate of Perceived Exertion scale, and endurance times were recorded. The results demonstrated significant reductions in neck and lower back muscle activity (median values up to 31.0%) and perceived discomfort (median values up to 50.0%), with the most improvements at 30° and 45° neck flexion angles. Participants reported 50% higher endurance time when using the exoskeleton. Minimal benefits were observed at 15° flexion, likely due to reduced musculoskeletal demand at this angle. These findings highlight the potential of exoskeletons as an ergonomic intervention to mitigate neck and back strain in occupations where high degrees of neck flexion are prevalent.
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.