This study systematically characterizes Do It Yourself (DIY) and open-source wheeled robotic platforms used in higher education and academic competitions. It also analyzes Robot Operating System (ROS)-based designs with respect to real-time performance and multi-sensor integration, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A total of 20 high-quality studies were identified across five major digital libraries (Dimensions, Web of Science, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore), which were searched on 12 January 2026. Eligibility was restricted to peer-reviewed English-language studies published between 2005 and 2026 that explicitly implement ROS-based wheeled platforms in higher education contexts. Results were synthesized through qualitative analysis using a structured data extraction form implemented in the Parsifal systematic review platform. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using a structured appraisal checklist. The results show a dominant trend toward distributed dual-processor architectures, which separate low-level real-time control from high-level processing. Most platforms target an accessible price range of 50€ to 500€ for open-source and DIY platforms. ROS has emerged as the standard middleware, enabling multi-sensor integration and supporting digital twin workflows. There is also a clear shift toward open-source hardware and Three-Dimensional (3D)-printed modular designs, which reduce production costs. However, challenges remain, including software obsolescence and the lack of maintenance plans. The findings highlight the need for interoperable reference architectures and automated deployment workflows to ensure long-term sustainability. Evidence is limited by heterogeneity, inconsistent reporting, and small sample sizes, which introduce risks of bias and imprecision. This review was formally registered with protocols.io.
Pereira et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: