Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39014103›Full record

ReviewHealth economics review2024

Economic analysis of digital motor rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review.

Koffi Adzinyo Agbemanyole, Kokouvi Geovani Agbohessou, Christelle Pons, Philippe Lenca, Olivier Rémy-Néris, Myriam Le Goff-Pronost

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health economics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The economic burden of functional neurological disorder.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

6 authors.

Koffi Adzinyo AgbemanyoleIMT Atlantique, LaTIM, UMR INSERM 1101, F-29238, Brest, France. koffi.agbemanyole@imt-atlantique.fr.
Kokouvi Geovani AgbohessouUniv. Limoges, HAVAE, UR20217, F-87000, Limoges, France.
Christelle PonsLaTIM (Laboratory of Medical Information Processing), INSERM UMR 1101 (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Unité Mixte de Recherche), 29238, Brest, France.
Philippe LencaIMT Atlantique, Lab-STICC, UMR CNRS 6285, F-29238, Brest, France.
Olivier Rémy-NérisLaTIM (Laboratory of Medical Information Processing), INSERM UMR 1101 (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Unité Mixte de Recherche), 29238, Brest, France.
Myriam Le Goff-PronostIMT Atlantique, LaTIM, UMR INSERM 1101, F-29238, Brest, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rehabilitation technologies offer promising opportunities for interventions for patients with motor disabilities. However, their use in routine care remains limited due to their high cost and persistent doubts about their cost-effectiveness. Providing solid evidence of the economic efficiency of rehabilitation technologies would help dispel these doubts in order to better take advantage of these technologies. In this context, this systematic review aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions based on the use of digital technologies. In total, 660 articles published between 2011 and 2021 were identified, of which eleven studies met all the inclusion criteria. Of these eleven studies, seven proved to be cost-effective, while four were not. Four studies used cost-utility analyses (CUAs) and seven used cost-minimization analyses (CMAs). The majority (ten studies) focused on the rehabilitation of the upper and/or lower limbs after a stroke, while only one study examined the rehabilitation of the lower limbs after knee arthroplasty. Regarding the evaluated devices, seven studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of robotic rehabilitation and four analyzed rehabilitation with virtual reality.The assessment of the quality of the included studies using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) suggested that the quality was related to the economic analysis method: all studies that adopted a cost-utility analysis obtained a high quality score (above 80%), while the quality scores of the cost-minimization analyses were average, with the highest score obtained by a CMA being 72%. The average quality score of all the articles was 75%, ranging between 52 and 100. Of the four studies with a considering score, two concluded that there was equivalence between the intervention and conventional care in terms of cost-effectiveness, one concluded that the intervention dominated, while the last one concluded that usual care dominated. This suggests that even considering the quality of the included studies, rehabilitation interventions based on digital technologies remain cost-effective, they improved health outcomes and quality of life for patients with motor disorders while also allowing cost savings.

Indexed as

Cost-effectiveness analysisDisabilityQALYRehabilitation technologiesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39014103
PMCPMC11253330

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.