ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Robot-Assisted Gravity Compensation for Upper Limb Motor Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Bioengineering (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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neurological disorders often cause severe upper limb motor impairments that restrict independence and quality of life. Robot-assisted rehabilitation enables high-intensity, task-oriented, and quantifiable training. One key feature, gravity compensation (GC), reduces the muscular effort needed to lift the limb and supports voluntary movement by offsetting the weight of the arm. This systematic review aimed to identify the types of GC strategies used in upper limb rehabilitation robots and assess clinical evidence on their effectiveness for improving motor outcomes. A search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore (January 2005-May 2025) identified 60 eligible studies: 23 describing GC implementation and 40 reporting clinical results. GC was implemented into exoskeletons, end-effectors, and sling-suspension systems through passive mechanical designs or active, model-based, and adaptive control algorithms. However, few studies reported key technical parameters such as controller algorithms, loop frequency, or tuning procedures, and only one addressed the control system stability. Clinically, GC-assisted training improved arm movement and range of motion, with greater effects in participants with higher impairment levels. However, the functional gains were modest and not superior to conventional or other robotic therapies. Substantial heterogeneity in training protocols and participants' demographics further limits direct comparison among GC strategies. Overall, the relative effectiveness of robot-assisted GC across devices remains unclear. Standardized reporting and more clinical trials are needed to compare GC strategies within and between different types of robots.
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.