Table 3.

Hip assistive devices and the average metabolic cost reduction they provide. The table includes information on the device type, degrees of freedom assisted and type of comparison performed by the researchers

Study	Joint assisted	Device	Comparison performed	Average metabolic reduction
Panizzolo et al. [9]	Ankle plantarflexion and hip extension	Portable and active	Powered vs No_Exoa	− 7.3%
Young et al. [12]	Hip extension or flexion	Portable and active	Powered vs Unpowered	−10.3% or − 9.7%
Panizzolo et al. [24]	Hip extension	Portable and active	Powered vs Unpowered	− 10.5%
Ding et al. [26]	Hip extension	Tethered and active	Powered vs No_Exo	−17.4%
Kitatani et al. [36]	Hip extension and flexion	Portable and active	Powered vs Unpowered	−10.5%
Lee et al. [37]	Hip extension and flexion	Portable and active	Powered vs No_Exo	−21.0%

^a No_Exo condition performed removing the effective mass of the device from the carried load