ArticleClinical rehabilitation2025
Validity, safety, usability, and user experience of virtual reality gamified home-based exercises in stroke.
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Usability and User Experience Assessment of Health Care Conversational Agents Using Validated Subjective Instruments: Systematic Review and Comparative Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Pooled it
- Immersive Virtual Reality for Stroke Rehabilitation: Linking Clinical and Digital Measures of Motor Recovery-A Pilot Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveThis study adopted a novel approach to exploring the content validity, safety, usability, and user experiences of different games for telerehabilitation purposes from the perspective of physiotherapists and stroke survivors.DesignA cross-sectional content validity and usability study.SettingLab and online.Participants23 participants were recruited; 11 neuro-physiotherapists and 12 chronic stroke survivors.OutcomesContent validity and safety were assessed using a bespoke state evaluation questionnaire. The usability was evaluated using the system usability scale (SUS) and user experience questionnaire (UEQ). House of Quality analysis was conducted to identify the priority aspects for improvement.ResultsPhysiotherapists perceived the usability of the games as good to excellent for three games, median SUS = 80%, and poor for two games SUS < 68%. Three games had a mean average content validity index (CVI) > 0.8, and all games were safe to be administrated at home; mean CVI-safety item = 0.90. Stroke survivors with Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity function mean (SD) = 41(19.4), and mild to moderate spasticity perceived usability as very good to excellent for four games (median SUS = 85%). UEQ scale showed good to excellent acceptance among most of the games. House of Quality analysis revealed that clear instructions, avatar quality, motivational exercise scenarios, and clinical assessment tools are important criteria that should be considered throughout the development.ConclusionThis study demonstrated the value of exploring patient and physiotherapist perspectives for better telerehabilitation interventions co-development. Clinical trials should be conducted after further refinement of the games to investigate their feasibility and potential efficacy as a telerehabilitation tool for arm and balance training.
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.