Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41327451›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025

Virtual reality as an assessment tool in neurorehabilitation: a scoping review of current evidence and future directions.

Mohammed M Alrashidi, Ahmed S Alanazi, Shahad Alkhannani, Amirah Alharbi, Shahad Almuayrifi, Ayman A Alhammad, Saad A Alhammad, Abdulrhman S Mashabi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

8 authors.

Mohammed M AlrashidiPhysical Therapy Department, College of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. mmrasheedi@taibahu.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-2565-1488
Ahmed S AlanaziPhysical Therapy Department, College of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Shahad AlkhannaniPhysical Therapy Department, College of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Amirah AlharbiPhysical Therapy Department, College of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Shahad AlmuayrifiPhysical Therapy Department, College of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Ayman A AlhammadPhysical Therapy Department, College of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-9611-8056
Saad A AlhammadDepartment of Rehabilitation Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9591-5649
Abdulrhman S MashabiPhysical Therapy Department, College of Medical Rehabilitation Sciences, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5690-2706

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual reality (VR) technologies are increasingly applied in neurorehabilitation, but most research has focused on their therapeutic applications rather than assessment potential.

objectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to map the evidence on VR-based assessment tools in neurorehabilitation, including types of tools, targeted neurological conditions, technological specifications, and research gaps.

methodsA scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251113260). Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), IEEE Xplore, and grey literature were performed from inception to July 2025. Eligible studies involved VR for assessment purposes in neurological populations and reported validity, reliability, usability, or assessment performance. Data were charted and synthesised thematically.

resultsSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most adapted established assessments such as the Box and Block Test, Action Research Arm Test, or Virtual Peg Insertion Test into VR formats. Populations included stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury, and movement disorders. VR systems ranged from custom-built motion-tracking platforms to commercial head-mounted displays with controllers or optical hand-tracking. Convergent validity ranged from moderate to excellent (r = 0.65–0.99), with optical tracking and mixed reality systems (r > 0.90) generally outperforming controller-based approaches (r ≈ 0.65). Usability was often rated highly but varied across conditions and modalities, with some studies reporting higher usability ratings for physical tasks compared to VR. Key gaps included limited normative datasets, heterogeneous hardware/software, and minimal longitudinal evaluations.

conclusionsVR-based assessments in neurorehabilitation remain a developing field. Preliminary evidence suggests good validity, usability, and feasibility, with potential to provide richer performance data that augment conventional assessment. However, large-scale, standardised, and condition-specific studies are required before widespread clinical implementation.

Indexed as

AssessmentMixed realityNeurorehabilitationPsychometricsUsabilityVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID41327451
PMCPMC12794368

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.