Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35278172›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2022

Gamified Neurorehabilitation Strategies for Post-stroke Motor Recovery: Challenges and Advantages.

Jenna Tosto-Mancuso, Laura Tabacof, Joseph E Herrera, Erica Breyman, Sophie Dewil, Mar Cortes, Loreene Correa-Esnard, Christopher P Kellner, Neha Dangayach, David Putrino

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

10 authors.

Jenna Tosto-MancusoAbilities Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Laura TabacofAbilities Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Joseph E HerreraAbilities Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Erica BreymanAbilities Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Sophie DewilAbilities Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Mar CortesAbilities Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Loreene Correa-EsnardAbilities Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Christopher P KellnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Neha DangayachDepartment of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
David PutrinoAbilities Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA. David.putrino@mountsinai.org.ORCID 0000-0002-2232-3324

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewStroke is the leading cause of permanent motor disability in the United States (US), but there has been little progress in developing novel, effective strategies for treating post-stroke motor deficits. The past decade has seen the rapid development of many promising, gamified neurorehabilitation technologies; however, clinical adoption remains limited. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the recent literature surrounding the adoption and use of gamification in neurorehabilitation after stroke. RECENT

findingsGamification of neurorehabilitation protocols is both feasible and effective. Deployment strategies and scalability need to be addressed with more rigor. Relationship between engaged time on task and rehabilitation outcomes should be explored further as it may create benefits beyond repetitive movement. As gamification becomes a more common and feasible way of delivering exercise-based therapies, additional benefits of gamification are emerging. In spite of this, questions still exist about scalability and widespread clinical adoption.

Indexed as

Motor DisordersNeurological RehabilitationPersons with DisabilitiesStrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansNeurological rehabilitationStrokeStroke rehabilitationVideo gamesVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID35278172
PMCPMC8917333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.