Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31586360›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2019

Exoskeletons With Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Gamification for Stroke Patients' Rehabilitation: Systematic Review.

Omar Mubin, Fady Alnajjar, Nalini Jishtu, Belal Alsinglawi, Abdullah Al Mahmud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Omar Mubin *School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Rydalmere, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6435-6407
Fady AlnajjarCollege of Information Technology, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6102-3765
Nalini JishtuSchool of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Rydalmere, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5622-305X
Belal AlsinglawiSchool of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Rydalmere, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0316-3641
Abdullah Al MahmudSwinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2801-723X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted therapy has become a promising technology in the field of rehabilitation for poststroke patients with motor disorders. Motivation during the rehabilitation process is a top priority for most stroke survivors. With current advancements in technology there has been the introduction of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), customizable games, or a combination thereof, that aid robotic therapy in retaining, or increasing the interests of, patients so they keep performing their exercises. However, there are gaps in the evidence regarding the transition from clinical rehabilitation to home-based therapy which calls for an updated synthesis of the literature that showcases this trend. The present review proposes a categorization of these studies according to technologies used, and details research in both upper limb and lower limb applications.

objectiveThe goal of this work was to review the practices and technologies implemented in the rehabilitation of poststroke patients. It aims to assess the effectiveness of exoskeleton robotics in conjunction with any of the three technologies (VR, AR, or gamification) in improving activity and participation in poststroke survivors.

methodsA systematic search of the literature on exoskeleton robotics applied with any of the three technologies of interest (VR, AR, or gamification) was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct & The Cochrane Library. Exoskeleton-based studies that did not include any VR, AR or gamification elements were excluded, but publications from the years 2010 to 2017 were included. Results in the form of improvements in the patients' condition were also recorded and taken into consideration in determining the effectiveness of any of the therapies on the patients.

resultsThirty studies were identified based on the inclusion criteria, and this included randomized controlled trials as well as exploratory research pieces. There were a total of about 385 participants across the various studies. The use of technologies such as VR-, AR-, or gamification-based exoskeletons could fill the transition from the clinic to a home-based setting. Our analysis showed that there were general improvements in the motor function of patients using the novel interfacing techniques with exoskeletons. This categorization of studies helps with understanding the scope of rehabilitation therapies that can be successfully arranged for home-based rehabilitation.

conclusionsFuture studies are necessary to explore various types of customizable games required to retain or increase the motivation of patients going through the individual therapies.

Indexed as

augmented realityexoskeletongamificationrehabilitationrobotstrokevirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID31586360
PMCPMC6779025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.