ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Design and experimental study of a rigid-flexible coupled back rehabilitation robot.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Existing spinal rehabilitation mechanisms present several limitations. These include a restricted range of motion, low flexibility, and suboptimal comfort. Methodology: To overcome these issues, a novel rigid-flexible coupled spine parallel rehabilitation mechanism is proposed. The mechanism is supported by a compression spring to enhance adaptability and comfort. Initially, a simplified skeletal-muscular model of spinal motion was developed based on human spine analysis. Subsequently, a mathematical model describing the system's kinematics was established. Results: Analysis of the model indicated that, under a 120 N force applied by the anterior deltoid fascicle, the mechanism exhibited a maximum deformation of 6.40 mm, meeting the design expectations. In both simulations and experimental tests of forward flexion, the maximum lumbar dorsal forward flexion angle reached 68.6°. The maximum lateral flexion angle achieved was 60.4°, while the maximum rotational angle reached 58.5°. The average maximum movement speed across different volunteers was 14.94°/s, closely aligning with the design target of 14.90°/s. Experimental measurements of the device's activity angles showed averages of 37.6° for forward flexion, 13.56° for backward flexion, 13.62° for lateral flexion (left/right), and 17.5° for rotation (left/right). All measured values were within, or closely approximated, the design range targets. Conclusion: The study determined both the physiological movement range of the human spine and the effective working space of the proposed mechanism. The results confirm the rationality and effectiveness of the mechanism's design.
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.