ReviewMethodsX2025
Decoding user experience in exergames: A systematic scoping review of assessment methods.
Review in MethodsX, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-Develop-IT! Unifying Methodological Guideline for the Co-Design, Development, and Evaluation of Individually Tailored Technology-Enhanced Training and Rehabilitation Concepts: Consensus Development Study and Tutorial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Comparing the Effect of Semi-Immersive Virtual Reality, Computerized Cognitive Training, and Traditional Rehabilitation on Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- The overlooked role of exergames in cognitive-motor neurorehabilitation: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exergames, which blend physical activity with digital gaming, are increasingly recognized for their potential to boost user engagement in exercise. The user perception of these games plays a critical role in sustaining this engagement. Therefore, understanding and effectively assessing user experience (UX) in exergames is crucial to maximizing their appeal and effectiveness. This study analyzes the methods and metrics for assessing UX in exergames through a systematic scoping review across multiple databases, including ACM, IEEE, ScienceDirect, Springer, and PubMed, considering publications up to November 2023. A total of 1,229 records were identified, of which 18 studies met the inclusion criteria for summarizing the assessment instruments and techniques used, the key constructs and elements discussed, and the times or settings where UX is assessed. The findings indicate a preference for validated questionnaires, underscoring a commitment to methodological soundness and enabling comparability. Additionally, the employment of motivational and physiological assessments reflects a commitment to capturing the holistic user experience. Tailored questionnaires and observational techniques underscore a customized assessment approach, attuned to the unique features of exergames and their audiences. The conclusions highlight the necessity for further longitudinal and cross-cultural studies to enhance understanding and improvement of UX in exergames.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.