Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37711328›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023

Ecologically valid virtual reality-based technologies for assessment and rehabilitation of acquired brain injury: a systematic review.

Ana Lúcia Faria, Jorge Latorre, Mónica Silva Cameirão, Sergi Bermúdez I Badia, Roberto Llorens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. An examination of sustained attention during complex multitasking scenarios.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025
    Article
  12. Virtual Reality-Based Rehabilitation Therapy.Physiological research · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  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

5 authors.

Ana Lúcia FariaFaculdade de Artes e Humanidades, Universidade da Madeira, Funchal, Portugal.
Jorge LatorreNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain.
Mónica Silva CameirãoNOVA Laboratory for Computer Science and Informatics, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sergi Bermúdez I BadiaNOVA Laboratory for Computer Science and Informatics, Lisbon, Portugal.
Roberto LlorensNeurorehabilitation and Brain Research Group, Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: A systematic review was conducted to examine the state of the literature regarding using ecologically valid virtual environments and related technologies to assess and rehabilitate people with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). Materials and methods: A literature search was performed following the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Web of Science, ACM and IEEE databases. The focus was on assessment and intervention studies using ecologically valid virtual environments (VE). All studies were included if they involved individuals with ABI and simulated environments of the real world or Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Results: Seventy out of 363 studies were included in this review and grouped and analyzed according to the nature of its simulation, prefacing a total of 12 kitchens, 11 supermarkets, 10 shopping malls, 16 streets, 11 cities, and 10 other everyday life scenarios. These VE were mostly presented on computer screens, HMD's and laptops and patients interacted with them primarily via mouse, keyboard, and joystick. Twenty-five out of 70 studies had a non-experimental design. Conclusion: Evidence about the clinical impact of ecologically valid VE is still modest, and further research with more extensive samples is needed. It is important to standardize neuropsychological and motor outcome measures to strengthen conclusions between studies. Systematic review registration: identifier CRD42022301560, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=301560.

Indexed as

acquired brain injuryactivities of daily livingassessmentecological validityrehabilitationvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID37711328
PMCPMC10497882

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.