Wearable hand exoskeletons are an active area of research for motor rehabilitation. This scoping review mapped the development landscape of such devices from 2010 to October 2025, aiming to summarize published devices, their design choices, validation with human subjects, and the completeness of reported device and usability metrics. The review focuses on the technologies and reporting practices that influence clinical comparability and translation.
The review covered publications between 2010 and October 2025 across four major bibliographic databases (specific database names were not reported in the source). Included records were screened and 134 articles met the inclusion criteria. The analysis concentrated on extracted device characteristics, actuation and transmission solutions, structural typology, and availability of usability and device-level metrics.
Across the included literature, the review identified 116 unique devices that had been validated with human subjects. The total number of included articles was 134, indicating that several devices may have been described across multiple publications. The review presents this aggregated view as a measure of the current volume of prototyping and early-stage validation in the field.
A clear predominance of soft structures was observed compared with rigid or hybrid architectures. Soft-device approaches were more commonly reported, reflecting a trend toward compliant, lightweight interfaces intended to better match hand anatomy and potentially improve comfort and safety during rehabilitation.
Regarding actuation and transmission, the most frequent solutions reported were electric motors as the actuation source and tendon-driven mechanisms for force transmission. These choices indicate a common engineering preference for compact motorized actuation paired with cable or tendon routing to generate finger and hand motion while keeping distal mass lower than in fully rigid linkages.
The review did not report detailed distributions or counts by subcategory beyond the predominance statements; more granular numbers or device examples were not provided in the abstract.
A major finding of the review is the lack of uniformity and completeness in reporting key device metrics and usability indicators. Examples of inconsistently reported information include:
Because these metrics were not uniformly available, the authors note that direct comparison of different technologies is hindered. This reporting heterogeneity complicates assessment of which systems are most suitable for clinical adoption, integration into care pathways, or deployment in home settings.
The review highlights that absence or inconsistency of standardized outcome and device reporting limits the ability to evaluate relative benefits, trade-offs in design (for example, between assistance level and device bulk), and practical usability for patients and clinicians.
The review synthesizes current trends and underscores a critical need for standardized validation protocols and more consistent reporting frameworks. Standardized protocols would enable more reliable cross-study comparisons, facilitate replication, and support evidence synthesis necessary for clinical guideline development and regulatory evaluation.
Specific implications noted by the authors include:
The review therefore calls for community-level efforts to define what validation should include (e.g., standardized functional assessments, usability benchmarks, and device specification reporting) to advance toward effective clinical solutions.
This scoping review of literature through October 2025 identified 134 articles and 116 distinct wearable hand exoskeletons validated with human subjects. The field shows a clear tilt toward soft structures and favors electric motor actuation with tendon-driven transmission in reported designs. However, inconsistent reporting of device metrics and usability indicators prevents direct comparison across systems and slows clinical translation. The authors emphasize the need for standardized validation protocols and more uniform reporting to enable effective evaluation and adoption of wearable hand exoskeletons in motor rehabilitation.
Note: The source abstract did not provide detailed quantitative breakdowns by device subtype beyond the summary findings, nor did it list the specific databases searched in the abstract text. Those details were not reported in the source provided here.