↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Risk management and regulations for lower limb medical exoskeletons: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 Mendeley
Title
Risk management and regulations for lower limb medical exoskeletons: a review
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/mder.s107134
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yongtian He, David Eguren, Trieu Phat Luu, Jose L Contreras-Vidal

Abstract

Gait disability is a major health care problem worldwide. Powered exoskeletons have recently emerged as devices that can enable users with gait disabilities to ambulate in an upright posture, and potentially bring other clinical benefits. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved marketing of the ReWalk™ Personal Exoskeleton as a class II medical device with special controls. Since then, Indego™ and Ekso™ have also received regulatory approval. With similar trends worldwide, this industry is likely to grow rapidly. On the other hand, the regulatory science of powered exoskeletons is still developing. The type and extent of probable risks of these devices are yet to be understood, and industry standards are yet to be developed. To address this gap, Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience, Clinicaltrials.gov, and PubMed databases were searched for reports of adverse events and inclusion and exclusion criteria involving the use of lower limb powered exoskeletons. Current inclusion and exclusion criteria, which can determine probable risks, were found to be diverse. Reported adverse events and identified risks of current devices are also wide-ranging. In light of these findings, current regulations, standards, and regulatory procedures for medical device applications in the USA, Europe, and Japan were also compared. There is a need to raise awareness of probable risks associated with the use of powered exoskeletons and to develop adequate countermeasures, standards, and regulations for these human-machine systems. With appropriate risk mitigation strategies, adequate standards, comprehensive reporting of adverse events, and regulatory oversight, powered exoskeletons may one day allow individuals with gait disabilities to safely and independently ambulate.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 252 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 16%
Student > Master 38 15%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 4%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 76 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 92 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 6%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 80 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,604,901
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#59
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,094
of 324,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.