ArticleWearable technologies2026
Battlefield exoskeleton usability for lower-limb trauma in prolonged field care: A mixed-methods approach.
Article in Wearable technologies, 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
Prolonged field care is increasingly important in military operations, where austere environments and delayed medical evacuations necessitate extended injury management. Tibia and fibula fractures are common, survivable battlefield injuries that demand such care. Current treatment options involve simple splints, which require the injured Service member to be carried on a litter, and exoskeletons, which are not suited for use in combat environments. The Intrepid Battlefield Exoskeleton (IBEX) was developed to address this critical gap in battlefield trauma care by stabilizing lower leg fractures and enabling independent mobility in prolonged care scenarios. This study evaluated the usability of two IBEX prototypes through sequential laboratory and field testing under two user conditions: medic and casualty. In laboratory testing, 20 participants completed a series of functional tasks with and without the IBEX and provided quantitative usability ratings and qualitative feedback via self-report measures and interviews. In field testing, 12 participants used the IBEX during a simulated mass casualty event and completed the same usability assessments. Quantitative results indicated high overall user satisfaction. Thematic analysis of qualitative feedback revealed recurring comments on usability, portability, comfort, security, and durability. Overall, results indicated moderate usability in both environments, with room to improve ease of fitting and adjustability. Findings highlight the value of a mixed-methods approach to device evaluation and underscore the importance of iterative design and testing. Ongoing work will compare the IBEX with the current standard of care and further refine the design for operational use.
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.