ReviewFrontiers in digital health2025
Neurorehabilitation technologies and functional recovery after brain injury: influence of sex, an integrative review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acquired brain injury (ABI), which includes traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke, is a leading cause of disability. Evidence shows that sex may influence functional recovery post-acquired brain injury, potentially due to biological (e.g., hormones) and social factors (e.g., caregiver availability). Meanwhile, new neurorehabilitation technologies-such as virtual reality, robotic-assistance, and brain-computer interfaces-offer promising avenues for improving functional outcomes. Understanding how these technologies interact with sex differences could advance equitable and personalized healthcare. Research question: Does evidence support a rationale for studying, developing, or employing neurorehabilitation technologies differently in males and females to improve functional outcomes post-ABI? Methodology: An empirical integrative narrative review was conducted. Searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and OVID, focusing on adult populations with ABI. Key terms encompassed "acquired brain injury," "sex differences," and "neurorehabilitation technologies." Fifty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, spanning diverse methodologies, settings, and cultural contexts. Data were synthesized to compare functional outcomes impacted by sex and by neurorehabilitation technologies. Results: Findings indicate that the effect of sex on neurorehabilitation outcomes is multifaceted. Studies using functional independence measures often reported no significant sex differences, whereas more specific measures (e.g., those measuring cognitive or social functions) identified notable sex effects. Neurorehabilitation technologies showed positive outcomes in various functional domains (e.g., upper extremity motor function, gait, cognition), but most studies focused on stroke. Discussion: Current research does not support the use of sex-differentiated technology interventions to target upper extremity motor function or global functional independence post-stroke. Sex-differentiated treatment may be relevant for other functional domains such as cognitive recovery, psychological well-being and social outcomes, but this requires further research, particularly for non-stroke ABI. Conclusion: These findings suggest that some neurorehabilitation technologies can be applied without sex-specific modification, whereas others may benefit from sex-specific considerations. Owing to methodological limitations and sparse data, especially for TBI, additional investigations are warranted. As novel neurorehabilitation technologies evolve, accounting for sex differences may enhance personalized care and optimize long-term outcomes.
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.