Current practices and limitations of testing procedures for rehabilitative and assistive hand exoskeletons.

IF 2.7
Expert review of medical devices Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-13 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2026.2686757
Holly Alfs, Steve Davis, David Punt, Samia Nefti-Meziani
{"title":"Current practices and limitations of testing procedures for rehabilitative and assistive hand exoskeletons.","authors":"Holly Alfs, Steve Davis, David Punt, Samia Nefti-Meziani","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2026.2686757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The development of hand exoskeletons for the assistance and rehabilitation of dexterity impairments has been ongoing for decades, although advancements are hindered by inconsistent evaluation metrics.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>This review aims to identify all methods used to test and compare the devices. Using these, it outlines an evaluative framework to standardize research and reduce heterogeneity moving forward. Literature from 2010 to 2025 was searched for using Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed. This comprised of publications detailing each exoskeleton and overall reviews of the technologies. Current testing methods were identified within mathematical and computational modeling, non-clinical prototype testing, clinical feasibility trials, and rehabilitative trials.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>At present, clinical adoption of hand exoskeletons is limited due to the lack of thorough, methodical analysis. The variation of assessment methods is partially attributed to the absence of suggested guidelines but may also be driven by intentions to mask device limitations. The current practices for theoretical analyses are sufficient for design optimization, verification, and defining control systems. However, both non-clinical and clinical prototype testing are used to validate device performances; therefore, the suggested standardized protocols would improve inter-device comparisons. This would produce faster advancements, leading to improved rehabilitation outcomes and patient independence.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":"951-965"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2026.2686757","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The development of hand exoskeletons for the assistance and rehabilitation of dexterity impairments has been ongoing for decades, although advancements are hindered by inconsistent evaluation metrics.

Areas covered: This review aims to identify all methods used to test and compare the devices. Using these, it outlines an evaluative framework to standardize research and reduce heterogeneity moving forward. Literature from 2010 to 2025 was searched for using Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed. This comprised of publications detailing each exoskeleton and overall reviews of the technologies. Current testing methods were identified within mathematical and computational modeling, non-clinical prototype testing, clinical feasibility trials, and rehabilitative trials.

Expert opinion: At present, clinical adoption of hand exoskeletons is limited due to the lack of thorough, methodical analysis. The variation of assessment methods is partially attributed to the absence of suggested guidelines but may also be driven by intentions to mask device limitations. The current practices for theoretical analyses are sufficient for design optimization, verification, and defining control systems. However, both non-clinical and clinical prototype testing are used to validate device performances; therefore, the suggested standardized protocols would improve inter-device comparisons. This would produce faster advancements, leading to improved rehabilitation outcomes and patient independence.

康复和辅助手外骨骼测试程序的当前实践和局限性。
导言:用于辅助和康复灵巧性损伤的手外骨骼的发展已经持续了几十年,尽管进展受到不一致的评估指标的阻碍。涵盖领域:本综述旨在确定用于测试和比较器械的所有方法。使用这些,它概述了一个评估框架来标准化研究和减少异质性。使用Scopus、IEEE explore和PubMed检索2010-2025年的文献。这包括详细介绍每个外骨骼和技术的总体评论的出版物。目前的测试方法包括数学和计算模型、非临床原型测试、临床可行性试验和康复试验。专家意见:目前,由于缺乏彻底、系统的分析,临床上对手外骨骼的采用受到限制。评估方法的变化部分归因于缺乏建议指南,但也可能是出于掩盖器械局限性的意图。目前理论分析的实践足以进行设计优化、验证和定义控制系统。然而,非临床和临床原型测试都用于验证设备性能,因此建议的标准化方案将改善设备间的比较。这将产生更快的进展,从而改善康复效果和患者独立性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书