SAIMSARA Journal

Machine-Readable Science • ISSN 3054-3991

Exoskeletons for Rehabilitation, Mobility Assistance, Occupational Support, and Human Augmentation: Scoping Review with ☸️SAIMSARA

Digital Health & Biotech icon

Digital Health & Biotech

Issue 3, Volume 1, 2026

Chat with this issue

DOI: 10.62487/saimsara376ef1fa

Editorial note
• Last update: 2026-06-07 20:59:22
What is this paper about
Built on 1,032 linked references, this review maps the full exoskeleton evidence landscape—from stroke and spinal cord injury rehabilitation to occupational support, mobility assistance, human augmentation, control systems, and real-world adoption. The full read reveals where exoskeletons genuinely improve function and reduce physical burden, where benefits remain task- and user-dependent, and which barriers still prevent broad clinical and industrial implementation.
Human-verified editorial review Verified by World ID proof-of-human. This editorial layer was submitted from a SAIMSARA account verified as a unique human.
Found an issue in this paper? Email admin@saimsara.com


Generated with SAIMSARA v5.2

Video summary generated from this ☸️SAIMSARA evidence map. Full reference-linked paper and evidence JSON are available after purchase.



Abstract: To map and synthesize original studies on exoskeletons across clinical, occupational, assistive, augmentative, and engineering contexts, identifying the dominant findings, practical implications, and future research priorities. The review uses 1032 references and builds its evidence map from 5029 original studies with 726960 total participants/sample observations (topic-deduplicated ΣN). This scoping review indicates that exoskeletons can reduce task-specific physiological and biomechanical burden and support selected functional gains, but their effectiveness depends strongly on matching device, controller, task, user population, and training exposure. The most recurrent signals are metabolic savings during assisted locomotion, such as a 10% reduction with an autonomous leg exoskeleton, alongside frequently improved gait speed and upper-limb motor recovery in rehabilitation populations. At the same time, randomized and cohort evidence remains mixed, with several trials showing equivalence to conventional care or only subgroup-dependent benefit, and occupational studies often pairing reduced muscle activity with workflow hindrance or shifted loading. These findings support a role for exoskeletons as personalizable adjuncts rather than uniformly superior interventions, highlighting the value of individualized tuning. Future research should prioritize larger, standardized trials that clarify which users and tasks yield durable, clinically meaningful benefit.

Keywords: Exoskeletons; Robotic rehabilitation; Lower limb exoskeletons; Ankle exoskeletons; Spinal cord injury; Stroke rehabilitation; Human locomotion; Metabolic cost; Assistive robotics; Ergonomics

Review Stats

Get access to the full paper

Unlock the full evidence map

Full paper access includes the complete human-readable review, figures, reference index, PDF export, and machine-readable Evidence JSON download.
Evidence JSON can also be purchased separately if you only need the LLM-ready object for agent, AI, or RAG workflows.
Institutional or library access? Sign in with your institution email to open all available SAIMSARA papers under your institution access arrangement.
Need a SAIMSARA review on your own topic? ☸️Request.

Reference Index (1032)

Unlock the full paper to view the complete Reference Index.

Article views: —
Follow us

© 2026 SAIMSARA Journal Impressum Published by ML in Health Science GbR