Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42010653›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026

Lower limb active exoskeletons, exosuits, assistive devices and specifications: a scoping review.

Robert E Trott, Timothy J Kleinig, Susan L Hillier, Karen J Reynolds, David A Hobbs

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Robert E TrottCollege of Science and Engineering, Medical Device Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. robert.trott@flinders.edu.au.
Timothy J KleinigRoyal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Susan L HillierInnovation, IMPlementation and Clinical Translation (IIMPACT) in Health, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Karen J ReynoldsCollege of Science and Engineering, Medical Device Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
David A HobbsCollege of Science and Engineering, Medical Device Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Powered lower limb exoskeletons were introduced to improve rehabilitation by increasing the quantity and quality of the therapy that a user receives. Fundamental principles targeting neuroplasticity, the driver of recovery, are delivered with exoskeletons, yet their use is not substitute for conventional rehabilitation. To deliver effective rehabilitation, exoskeletons must align with the needs of users. When devices reportedly achieve the same thing, how can one know which approach is best? Here we review 467 lower limb devices with the goal of discovering the breadth of the specification of devices and the implications these specifications have for users. Using a scoping search strategy, we reviewed exoskeletons and assistive devices looking at device type, usability, performance and specification. Only devices that fixate to the lower limbs and actively transmit forces/torques to at least one anatomic joint were considered. Like specifications were grouped and reported, and used as the basis for discussion, drawing on relevant literature in each case. Stationary devices are unlikely to ever be used in the home. To improve the uptake of ambulating devices outside the clinic, there should be renewed focus on degrees of freedom, bi- or uni-latera application, mass, donning/doffing and the control of devices. Unilateral conditions are still being treated with bilaterial devices, and providing passive/active non-sagittal (Degrees of Freedom) DOFs need to be carefully considered with respect to environmental negotiation, task variability, and device mass. Heavier devices are unlikely to be self-donned, and donning quickly may increase the time someone is engaged in their therapy and improve dosage. Control is central to usability and incorporating user intention is critical to boosting engagement and usage outcomes. When a patient can become a passenger in rehabilitation, this delivers poor outcomes, and we need to revisit the control systems and triggers so that they take meaningful and task related input from users. The exoskeleton field is relatively young and still full of promise. Improvements in rehabilitation outcomes will be delivered through properly accommodating the needs of patients and clinics, and improving usability by providing cheaper devices that can realistically be used at home and provide meaningful and engaging methods of control.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DeviceLower ExtremityNeurological RehabilitationSelf-Help DevicesHumansAssistiveControlDesignExoskeletonGaitNeuroplasticityRehabilitationRobotSpecificationUsability

Identifiers

PMID42010653
PMCPMC13235155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.