Back-Support Exoskeletons: A Practical Buyer’s Guide

Back-support exoskeletons are not interchangeable lifting aids. Passive rigid frames, soft exosuits and powered systems differ in how they generate assistance, where they transfer force, how they respond to posture and whether they remain compatible with the rest of a job. The right buying decision therefore starts with a task-level demand analysis, then tests assistance, fit, movement, safety, worker acceptance and supplier support under the exact conditions in which the device will be used.

What a back-support exoskeleton is designed to do

Occupational back-support exoskeletons, sometimes described as back-assist, lift-assist, lumbar-support or trunk-support systems, are wearable devices intended to reduce part of the physical demand associated with trunk flexion, lifting, lowering or sustained forward-leaning work. They do not remove the external load. Instead, they generate or redirect an extension-support moment that can reduce the effort required from parts of the user’s posterior chain.

The assistance must be reacted somewhere on the body. Depending on the design, force may be transmitted through the chest, pelvis, thighs, shoulders or textile interfaces. This load path explains both the intended benefit and many of the trade-offs. A reduction in lumbar-muscle demand can coexist with increased pressure, altered hip or knee strategy, additional abdominal or leg activity, restriction or heat elsewhere.

This guide focuses on occupational systems. It does not cover powered medical lower-limb exoskeletons, rehabilitation robots or clinical treatment. ISO/CD 25563 similarly addresses workplace integration and excludes medical, rehabilitation, games, sport and leisure applications.^[7] Back-support products should also be positioned within an ergonomics programme, after elimination, redesign and conventional engineering controls have been considered.^[8]

What the evidence can and cannot establish

The evidence base is considerably stronger for immediate biomechanical effects than for long-term injury prevention. An updated systematic review identified 13 active and 20 passive back-support studies. Across predominantly laboratory lifting and bending tasks, researchers generally reported reductions in back-muscle activity, peak L5/S1 moments or spinal compression estimates. The same review found moderate satisfaction, lower performance in tasks requiring agility and possible increases in abdominal or lower-limb activity and changes in joint angles.^[1]

A broader 2024 occupational review included 49 exoskeleton studies published between 2014 and 2024 and again highlighted the dominance of laboratory testing and the need for more real-world assessment.^[2] A systematic review of quality, productivity and economic outcomes screened 6,722 records and retained 15 studies; none directly evaluated the economic implications of occupational exoskeleton use.^[3]

The practical conclusion is not that back-support exoskeletons are ineffective. It is that buyers must match the claim to the evidence. A reduction in erector-spinae activity during a measured task can support a muscle-demand claim. It does not independently prove fewer injuries, lower absence or a financial payback period. NIOSH has likewise cautioned that exoskeletons may transfer load, alter movement and introduce interface, thermal, stability or battery-related risks that require evaluation before widespread use.^[9]

Understand the main product architectures

Back-support systems can be grouped in several ways. The most useful buyer distinction combines energy source, structural form and assistance behaviour.

Passive does not mean weak

A well-matched passive device can produce meaningful assistance without batteries or software. Its support typically changes with body angle and stored elastic energy. The same geometry can also produce resistance or pressure outside the target movement. Buyers should examine the complete torque or support profile, not only a maximum value.

Powered does not mean automatically better

Powered systems can adapt assistance and may reduce more physical demand in some controlled tasks. In a study involving 15 men and 14 women handling a 15 kg load, the passive device reduced selected muscle activity by 12% to 27%, while two active systems produced reductions of 7% to 62% across measured muscles. Effects depended on device design and task, and active systems also changed trunk kinematics.^[10]

A related cardiorespiratory study with 27 participants found lower oxygen consumption with all three tested devices during five minutes of repetitive 10 kg stoop lifting. The largest reduction occurred with one of the active systems, but the other active system and the passive device produced different results despite belonging to broad technology categories.^[11] Buyers should therefore compare actual devices and settings rather than infer performance from the word “powered”.

Soft does not mean unrestricted or comfortable

Soft systems can reduce bulk and rigid interference, but assistance still requires tension and body interfaces. Rigid systems may provide more defined support in some postures but can restrict rotation or transfer pressure to the chest and thighs. Neither category provides a reliable shortcut to comfort.

A 2026 controlled repetitive-lifting study with 26 healthy adults found that both a rigid and a soft passive device reduced energy expenditure, rate-pressure product and perceived exertion. The rigid system reduced energy expenditure by 13.9% and perceived exertion by 14.4%; the soft system produced reductions of 9.4% and 9.5%, respectively. Neither produced significant changes in measured trunk or abdominal muscle activity, and wearing comfort declined after the task with both devices.^[12]

Match the device to the whole task cycle

Back-support devices are commonly selected for lifting or forward bending, but workers rarely perform one isolated movement for an entire shift. A useful task analysis separates the job into elements and identifies when support is desirable, neutral or potentially obstructive.

A product may be a strong candidate for one task element and a poor candidate for the overall job. Limited, task-specific deployment can therefore be a better outcome than full-shift use.

Evidence for repetitive lifting and lowering

Repetitive lifting is the most studied back-support application, but the results remain device- and posture-specific.

In a gender-balanced laboratory study of 18 participants, two passive systems reduced peak trunk-extensor activity by approximately 9% to 20% and energy expenditure by approximately 8% to 14%. Benefits were greater in symmetric than asymmetric conditions, while users reported local discomfort despite generally positive usability.^[13]

A later study involving 20 younger and 16 older adults found that soft and rigid passive systems increased self-selected maximum acceptable load by about 7% and reduced trunk-extensor activity by approximately 7% to 18%. However, both devices encouraged a more squat-like strategy, increased quadriceps activity by about 34% and increased abdominal activity by 5% to 20% during asymmetric tasks.^[14]

Neuromuscular effects can also be more complex than a simple reduction. A 2024 study of 32 younger and older adults found that soft and rigid devices changed trunk dynamic stability and trunk-pelvis coordination differently. Both altered coordination measures by approximately 30% to 60%, with greater changes under the rigid condition for some outcomes.^[15] This does not establish harm, but it reinforces the need to measure movement strategy as well as target-muscle activity.

Evidence for logistics and order picking

Logistics is one of the most relevant deployment environments because work combines repeated low lifts, walking, carrying, vehicle or pallet interaction and variable product handling.

A 2025 field study followed ten experienced order pickers who had at least four weeks of familiarity with a soft back exoskeleton. During a 1.5-hour order-picking task, erector-spinae activity was reduced by 7.5%, while trunk-flexor activity, trunk posture and low-back pain were not significantly changed. Acceptance was favourable in the studied setting.^[16]

The strongest longer-term evidence available by July 2026 is a 24-week randomised field trial involving 20 logistics workers. Back-muscle reductions during standardised lifting remained present after 24 weeks. Three users stopped using the device, while the remaining intervention workers progressively increased daily use and reported an overall reduction in perceived work intensity.^[17]

This is encouraging but not sufficient to generalise to all warehouses. Product mix, rack height, vehicle use, shift pattern and device model can change the result. The dropout and progressive usage pattern are as important as the laboratory-style muscle measures.

Evidence for construction and irregular tasks

Construction can expose the limitations of a device selected only through lifting trials. Work may involve uneven ground, tools, ladders, PPE, heat, kneeling, asymmetric movement and frequent changes in posture.

A 2026 in-field construction study assessed rigid and soft passive systems during shovelling, rebar tying and welding. Workers generally perceived lower-back support, but the rigid system was considered more restrictive. Thermal discomfort, device weight and interference with tools or surroundings were recurring concerns, and preferences varied by task.^[18]

A separate 2026 shovelling study combined controlled and real-world conditions. At least one lumbar muscle on the more heavily loaded side showed significantly lower activity with the passive exosuit, perceived exertion was lower and usability scores were high. Participants nevertheless differed in whether they considered the device helpful.^[19]

Roofing research demonstrates why architecture cannot be ranked in the abstract. During simulated shingle installation, a rigid device reduced lumbar-muscle activation by 11% to 17%, while the soft system reduced trunk flexion by about 4% without changing lumbar activity. Both reduced perceived low-back exertion by about 16%, but the rigid device increased leg discomfort by approximately 26% and the soft device increased shoulder exertion by approximately 19%.^[20]

A 2026 study of construction-relevant simulations included 40 participants, half experienced workers and half novices, balanced by sex. It tested three back-support systems with support switched on and off, emphasising that experience, design and task characteristics can influence usability and performance rather than producing one universal device effect.^[21]

Evidence for manufacturing and mixed assembly work

Manufacturing jobs may combine low-level assembly, lifting, reaching, walking, rotation, seated work and access inside products or machinery. Averaging across the entire job can hide where a device helps or hinders.

In a 2026 realistic automotive simulation involving 18 healthy adults and a semi-assembled vehicle, a soft device reduced peak trunk flexion. Both soft and rigid systems restricted axial rotation and were associated with compensatory lateral bending, more strongly under the rigid condition. Both reduced median trunk-extensor activity, but perceived exertion rose slightly and reported comfort and performance declined over time.^[24]

The buyer implication is clear: evaluate specific task elements and transitions rather than relying on one whole-job average. A device may be approved only for selected stations or phases.

Compare the assistance profile, not the headline claim

Suppliers describe support in different units and under different test conditions. A quoted torque, force, percentage muscle reduction or “kilograms of relief” cannot be compared directly without a method.

Ask how assistance changes with posture

For passive devices, request the assistance curve across the intended range of trunk and hip angles. Determine when support begins, where it peaks and what the user experiences on return. For powered systems, ask how sensors identify the task, how quickly assistance begins and ends, and what happens when the user changes movement unexpectedly.

Ask where the counterforce goes

The organisation should understand contact locations and peak interface pressure. Chest, shoulder, pelvis and thigh components should be assessed during repeated movement, not only while standing. Users should map pressure and discomfort after progressive exposure.

Ask for the exact test configuration

Support settings, software, textile tension, spring selection, body size, accessories and task speed can alter results. The evidence supplied should cover the exact commercial model and configuration being purchased.

ASTM F3773-25 now provides a standardised method for assessing how back exoskeletons affect lumbar loading and low-back-disorder risk during lifting, lowering and forward-bending tasks. It covers active, passive, rigid, soft and mode-switching designs and requires appropriately skilled biomechanical analysis.^[26] A claim that testing was “based on” the standard should still be supported by the complete report.

Evaluate fit across the real workforce

Back-support devices interact with multiple body dimensions at once. Overall height is not enough. Relevant dimensions can include torso length, chest, waist, pelvis, thigh circumference, hip breadth and the relationship between these measures.

ASTM F3661 distinguishes static fit from dynamic fit. A device can align correctly while the user stands still but move, rotate or apply pressure during lifting, walking or reaching. The standard warns that poor fit can contribute to discomfort, distraction, non-use, accidents and task failure.^[22]

Research representation remains a major limitation. A 2026 review analysed 191 arm- and back-support studies from 2019 to 2024. Participants were approximately 78% male, none of the studies reported race or ethnicity and anthropometric diversity was limited. Moderate evidence suggested larger trunk-extensor reductions for women in back-support studies, but evidence for other demographic effects was insufficient.^[23]

Fit testing should document

• Who falls inside and outside the manufacturer’s stated size range.
• Who can achieve correct alignment without excessive strap pressure.
• Whether adjustment remains stable through the work cycle.
• Fit over seasonal clothing, uniforms and PPE.
• Whether users can fit and adjust the device independently.
• Pressure, slippage and movement at each body interface.
• Any difference between nominal size and functional fit.

Do not force workers into the nearest available size. Failure to accommodate a material part of the target workforce is a product-selection outcome.

Test mobility, compatibility and escape

The assisted task is only one part of safety. Evaluate walking, turning, sitting, kneeling, squatting, stepping over obstacles, stairs, ladders, confined spaces, vehicle entry, tool use and emergency release.

ASTM F3527-24 provides a task-specific contextual risk-assessment framework and states that no current occupational exoskeleton certification programme guarantees that circumstantial risks have been evaluated for the real work context.^[27] ASTM F3688-25 separately addresses ergonomic risks including excessive force, awkward posture, repetition, contact pressure, vibration and heat or cold.^[28]

Device compatibility should be tested with every required PPE item and operational tool. Review high-visibility clothing, harnesses, fall protection, radios, belts, respirators, protective suits, gloves and tool lanyards. A combination that appears acceptable while stationary may snag, overlap or prevent release during work.

Take side effects and discomfort seriously

A 2023 systematic review of shoulder- and back-support systems included four field and 32 laboratory studies. Discomfort was the most frequently reported side effect, appearing in 30 studies, followed by limited usability in 16. Other reported effects involved muscle activity, mobility, task performance, balance, posture, circulation, gait and precision. Incorrect fit and reduced degrees of freedom were common explanations. Eighty-nine per cent of the studies were laboratory-based and 97% measured only short-term effects.^[4]

This evidence does not show that back-support systems are broadly unsafe. It shows that absence of serious events in small, short studies cannot establish long-term safety, and that apparently mild interface or usability issues can determine whether a device is worn.

Local discomfort should be recorded by body region and over time. A passive-trunk study found around a 10% reduction in low-back muscle activity and lower lumbar discomfort during a static task, but increased discomfort at the chest and feet. During a dynamic task, back-muscle activity fell by about 5% while chest discomfort increased.^[29]

Measure acceptance through behaviour

Questionnaires are useful, but real usage is a stronger test. Record wearing time, removal, skipped tasks, adjustment requests and the reason behind every period of non-use.

In a four-hour field trial involving 146 logistics workers, 80% were willing to continue into longer testing. Intention to use could be predicted with 78% accuracy from interactions between perceived effectiveness and work compatibility.^[5] The scale is valuable, but the exposure was too short to establish sustained adoption.

A 2026 systematic review of 28 occupational implementation studies identified 70 facilitators and 67 barriers. Device factors accounted for 36.4% of reported barriers, followed by user factors at 24.5%, work or job factors at 20%, management at 14.5% and attitude at 4.5%.^[6] The implementation process, availability, maintenance, supervisor support and worker involvement therefore belong in the buying decision.

Compare operational burden and lifecycle cost

Acquisition price is only one cost. Compare the complete operating model:

• Fitting and training time.
• Number and range of sizes.
• Cleaning and textile replacement.
• Inspection and preventive maintenance.
• Batteries, charging, software and subscriptions for powered systems.
• Spare parts and regional service response.
• Storage and shift handover.
• Downtime and replacement units.
• Programme administration and ergonomic evaluation.

Do not accept a generic ROI period derived from another customer. The economic systematic review found no included studies that directly evaluated occupational exoskeleton economics.^[3] A business case should use local lifecycle cost, measured usage and task-specific pilot outcomes, with uncertainty shown explicitly.

Review supplier capability as part of the product

The supplier should be able to support task screening, fitting, training, maintenance and incident response without controlling the organisation’s independent evaluation.

ASTM F3444/F3444M-20 establishes minimum topics for exoskeleton-user training and recommends demonstration followed by user repetition to verify competence.^[30] A sales handover is not a training programme.

A practical back-support buyer scorecard

The following framework is an Exoskeleton Index decision tool, not a regulation or validated clinical scale. Weightings should be adjusted to the use case, but critical safety or fit failures should override the total.

Use the score to structure discussion, not to convert uncertainty into false precision. A device should not proceed because a strong muscle-reduction result compensates mathematically for poor fit, emergency interference or lack of service.

Supplier questions for back-support systems

Assistance and task fit

Ask which trunk angles and movements activate support, how assistance changes through the lift, whether it supports asymmetric movement, how it behaves during carrying and walking, and how assistance can be disengaged. Request reports using the actual model, support setting and target task.

Fit and interfaces

Ask for every sizing variable, not only height and weight. Determine how chest, waist, pelvis and thigh interfaces are adjusted, how pressure is managed, whether users can self-fit and which body types cannot be accommodated.

Movement and environment

Ask what testing exists for sitting, vehicles, stairs, ladders, inclined planes, obstacles, confined spaces, heat, dust, moisture and PPE. Confirm the intended cleaning method and material limits.

Maintenance and change

Ask how often elastic elements, textiles, joints, batteries or actuators require inspection or replacement. Require notification before hardware, software or assistance-profile changes that could make prior evidence obsolete.

Red flags

Other red flags include a single-size solution for a diverse workforce, testing only with young male participants, an undocumented “AI” or adaptive control mode, no regional spare-parts plan, inability to sit or release quickly, and a pilot whose success is defined only by satisfaction at the end of a supplier demonstration.

Recommended procurement sequence

A disciplined process reduces both risk and wasted evaluation capacity.

ISO/CD 25563 is moving toward a structured process for integrating wearable physical-assistance devices in work situations, but as of 30 July 2026 it remains under development and does not provide certification.^[7] Organisations should use the same process mindset now without presenting the draft as a completed standard.

Medium-term evidence is also still developing. The ELSA LogiCare protocol published in July 2026 plans to recruit 120 logistics and care workers, compare two passive back-support devices with a control group over three months and measure wearing time, discomfort, workload, fatigue, acceptance and implementation barriers.^[31] Until studies of this scale report results, buyers should remain conservative about broad long-term claims.

Conclusion

Back-support exoskeletons can reduce elements of physical demand during selected lifting and forward-bending tasks. The strongest evidence concerns immediate muscle, load, energy or perceived-effort outcomes. The most important uncertainties concern sustained use, workforce coverage, compensatory effects, long-term health and economics.

A strong purchase decision does not select the device with the largest marketing support number. It selects the system that demonstrates relevant benefit during the exact task, accommodates the intended users, remains compatible with the rest of the job, introduces manageable risks and can be supported through training, maintenance and repeated review.

In some workplaces, the correct outcome will be narrow task-specific use. In others, a different architecture, a conventional engineering control or no exoskeleton at all will be more appropriate. A rigorous evaluation should make each of those outcomes acceptable.

Methodology and scope

This guide was prepared from official ergonomics and standards sources, systematic reviews and peer-reviewed laboratory and field research reviewed up to 30 July 2026. Priority was given to evidence that identified the device architecture, task, user sample, exposure and measured outcome. Individual product studies are included to illustrate design and task differences and do not constitute endorsements.

The guide concerns occupational back-support exoskeletons. It does not replace qualified ergonomics, occupational-health, safety, medical, engineering, regulatory or legal assessment. Product specifications, commercial availability and standards status should be rechecked before procurement.

Explore related Exoskeleton Index resources

References

1. Kermavnar T, de Vries AW, de Looze MP, O’Sullivan LW. Effects of industrial back-support exoskeletons on body loading and user experience: an updated systematic review. Ergonomics. 2021;64(6):685–711. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2020.1870162.
2. Cardoso A, Ribeiro A, Carneiro P, Colim A. Evaluating Exoskeletons for WMSD Prevention: A Systematic Review of Applications and Ergonomic Approach in Occupational Settings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024;21(12):1695. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21121695.
3. Fournier DE, Yung M, Somasundram KG, Du BB, Rezvani S, Yazdani A. Quality, productivity, and economic implications of exoskeletons for occupational use: A systematic review. PLOS ONE. 2023;18(6):e0287742. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287742.
4. Kranenborg SE, Greve C, Reneman MF, Roossien CC. Side-effects and adverse events of a shoulder- and back-support exoskeleton in workers: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics. 2023;111:104042. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104042.
5. Hess A, Jacobs JV, Sullivan S, et al. Active back exosuits demonstrate positive usability perceptions that drive intention-to-use in the field among logistic warehouse workers. Applied Ergonomics. 2025;122:104400. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104400.
6. van Laar DM, Bieleman HJ, Rijnders CSI, et al. Occupational Exoskeletons as a Technological Solution for Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators for Sustainable Workplace Integration. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2026. DOI: 10.1007/s10926-026-10397-5.
7. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/CD 25563: Ergonomics — Process for the integration of wearable physical assistive devices. Under development. Official project page.
8. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Hierarchy of Controls. Official guidance.
9. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Industrial Exoskeletons. NIOSH Science Bulletin. Official guidance.
10. Schwartz M, et al. Biomechanical Consequences of Using Passive and Active Back-Support Exoskeletons during Different Manual Handling Tasks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023;20(15):6468. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20156468.
11. Schwartz M, Desbrosses K, Theurel J, Mornieux G. Using passive or active back-support exoskeletons during a repetitive lifting task: influence on cardiorespiratory parameters. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2022;122:2575–2583. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-022-05034-x.
12. Voß J, Deicke J, Laufs U, et al. Physiological and perceptual effects of two passive back-support exoskeletons during repetitive lifting in healthy adults. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2026;126:3289–3302. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-026-06125-9.
13. Madinei S, Alemi MM, Kim S, Srinivasan D, Nussbaum MA. Biomechanical assessment of two back-support exoskeletons in symmetric and asymmetric repetitive lifting with moderate postural demands. Applied Ergonomics. 2020;88:103156. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103156.
14. Raghuraman RN, Barbieri DF, Aviles J, Srinivasan D. Age and gender differences in the perception and use of soft vs. rigid exoskeletons for manual material handling. Ergonomics. 2024;67(11):1453–1470. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2024.2338268.
15. Raghuraman RN, Srinivasan D. The effects of soft vs. rigid back-support exoskeletons on trunk dynamic stability and trunk-pelvis coordination in young and old adults during repetitive lifting. Journal of Biomechanics. 2024;176:112348. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112348.
16. Thevenot C, Pierre X, Mornieux G. Effects of an occupational soft-back exoskeleton during order picking: a field study in logistics. Ergonomics. 2025;68(12):1984–1997. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2024.2447867.
17. Jakobsen LS, Samani A, Desbrosses K, de Zee M, Steinhilber B, Madeleine P. Effects of 24-weeks in-field use of a back-supporting exoskeleton on biomechanics, work intensity and musculoskeletal discomfort: A randomized controlled trial among logistic workers. Applied Ergonomics. 2025;125:104469. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104469.
18. Zindashti NJ, Riahi N, Bonakdar A, et al. Insights from In-Field Applications of Back-Support Exoskeletons in the Construction Industry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions. 2026. DOI: 10.1080/24725838.2026.2662926.
19. Wood DS, Bradley S, Bottom J, et al. Exploring the effectiveness of a back-supporting exosuit: Trunk muscle activity and user experience in controlled and real-world shoveling scenarios. Journal of Safety Research. 2026;96:363–373. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2026.01.002.
20. Choi J, Kim S, Usmani AR, Barr A, Harris-Adamson C, Nussbaum MA. Rigid and soft back-support exoskeletons affect biomechanical and perceptual demands, but in different ways, during simulated shingle installation. Applied Ergonomics. 2026;134:104744. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104744.
21. Kim S, et al. Evaluating back-support exoskeletons in simulated construction-relevant tasks: Effects on task completion time and aspects of usability. Applied Ergonomics. 2026;132:104661. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104661.
22. ASTM International. ASTM F3661-24: Standard Guide for Assessing Fit Accommodation of Exoskeletons for Manufacturers and Designers. DOI: 10.1520/F3661-24.
23. Kazemi Z, Park J, Srinivasan D. Unequal assistance? A systematic review of demographic representation and outcome differences in exoskeleton studies. Applied Ergonomics. 2026;137:104808. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104808.
24. Kazemi Z, Srinivasan D. Evaluation of the subjective and objective benefits of occupational soft and rigid back support exoskeletons in simulated automotive assembly tasks. Applied Ergonomics. 2026;136:104795. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2026.104795.
25. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. Updated 2024. Official guidance.
26. ASTM International. ASTM F3773-25: Standard Test Method for Assessing the Effect of Back Exoskeletons on Low Back Loading and Risk. DOI: 10.1520/F3773-25.
27. ASTM International. ASTM F3527-24: Standard Guide for Assessing Risks Related to Implementation of Exoskeletons in Task-Specific Environments. DOI: 10.1520/F3527-24.
28. ASTM International. ASTM F3688-25: Standard Guide for Evaluating Potential Ergonomic Risks From Exoskeleton Use. DOI: 10.1520/F3688-25.
29. Giustetto A, et al. Investigating the effect of a passive trunk exoskeleton on local discomfort, perceived effort and spatial distribution of back muscles activity. Ergonomics. 2021. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2021.1928297.
30. ASTM International. ASTM F3444/F3444M-20: Standard Practice for Training Exoskeleton Users. DOI: 10.1520/F3444_F3444M-20.
31. Sieber W, Voß J, Falz R, et al. Practical applicability and effectiveness of passive, back-support exoskeletons in logistics and care: a randomized controlled trial protocol (ELSA LogiCare). Trials. 2026;27:501. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-026-09890-2.