Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41192829›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Digital Innovations for Clinical Assessment in Acquired Brain Injury: Scoping Review.

Carl O'Brien, Aoife Murray, Gerard McManus, Chantel Debert

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Assessing verbal and spatial memory via smartphone.Frontiers in digital health · 2026
    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

4 authors.

Carl O'BrienRoyal College of Physicians of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7176-3643
Aoife MurrayRoyal College of Physicians of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9414
Gerard McManusSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5756-6732
Chantel DebertHotchkiss Brain institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2704-0438

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcquired brain injury (ABI) is a leading global cause of morbidity, affecting millions, many of whom face a diverse range of cognitive, physical, and psychological challenges, often made worse due to limited access to timely assessment and appropriate care. In recent years, digital technologies have emerged as potential tools to support more accessible, efficient, and scalable methods for assessment; however, the breadth of research in this area remains unclear.

objectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify and synthesize contemporary research on how digital technologies may help screen, assess, and monitor the complications of ABI in order to uncover trends, themes, and priorities for future research.

methodsFollowing the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus, as well as four clinical trial registries to help capture gray literature. A search string incorporating terms related to "ABI," "clinical assessment," and "digital tools" was developed a priori. Studies from 2013 to 2024 leveraging digital health tools, for example, smartphones, tablets, websites, telemedicine, and virtual reality, to aid ABI complication assessment were included. Exclusion criteria comprised studies involving bespoke clinical hardware (eg, radiographs and EEG monitors), nonhuman subjects, or review articles. Following this, data synthesis and domain mapping were performed.

resultsOf 5293 screened records, 88 met the inclusion criteria: 2 retrospective studies, 4 qualitative studies, 35 cohort studies, 42 cross-sectional studies, and 5 randomized controlled trials. The median sample included 26 participants with ABI; 51 studies also involved non-ABI participants (median of 10 participants included). Digital platforms varied, with 45 studies using smartphone or tablet technologies, 23 PC or web-based platforms, 11 telemedicine solutions, and 9 virtual reality platforms. The predominant research themes included the use of digital technology to aid screening for traumatic brain injury, identifying or monitoring symptoms or functional outcomes; physical examination, the assessment of cognition and communication, and providing a comprehensive consultation. Most tools were reported to be well-tolerated, with accuracy often described as comparable to standard assessments. However, the studies were heterogeneous, with limited validation of tools across broad representative populations or multiple sites or studies. There was also little discussion on potential ethical concerns such as accessibility, access, and data privacy.

conclusionsThis investigation provides an extensive overview of current research trends and highlights the need for larger, more rigorous studies to optimize the use of digital technologies in ABI assessment, as well as gaps in the assessment of common complications. Expanding research into underexplored ABI complications, broadening the scope of assessments to include a broader range of complications, and including larger, more diverse populations will be critical for advancing the field and improving outcomes for individuals with ABI.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesDigital TechnologyHumansTelemedicineacquired brain injuryclinical assessmentdigital health technologyeHealthscoping review

Identifiers

PMID41192829
PMCPMC12631094

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.