ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Upper limb motor recovery using a digital health-driven IoT rehabilitation system: a case report.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital health-driven rehabilitation systems incorporating Internet of Things (IoT) technologies have attracted increasing attention as a means to support upper limb motor recovery after stroke. However, detailed clinical descriptions of their implementation in routine inpatient rehabilitation remain limited. Case presentation: We report the case of a right-handed man in his forties with right-sided upper limb motor impairment following putaminal hemorrhage. The patient underwent rehabilitation using a digital health-driven IoT-based upper limb rehabilitation system starting approximately one month after stroke onset during the convalescent rehabilitation phase. Intervention: The intervention was conducted over a two-week period, consisting of 10 sessions (approximately 40 min per session) as part of routine inpatient rehabilitation. The system integrated a portable smart projector, a three-dimensional motion capture sensor, and a communication robot to deliver interactive, task-oriented training. Five activities of daily living-oriented tasks (wiping, unlocking, squeezing, cup transfer, and typing) were implemented, with task difficulty adjusted by the treating occupational therapist according to the patient's performance. Outcomes: Upper limb motor function assessed by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the Upper Extremity improved from 63 to 66. Real-world arm use assessed by the Motor Activity Log showed an Amount of Use score of 5 both before and after the intervention, suggesting a ceiling effect, while the Quality of Movement score improved slightly from 4.8 to 5. The patient demonstrated high engagement and adherence throughout the intervention, and no adverse events were observed. Conclusion: This case report demonstrates the clinical feasibility of integrating a digital health-driven IoT rehabilitation system into routine inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Although generalization is limited by the single-case design, the present case highlights the potential of IoT-based digital health technologies to support task-oriented training and patient engagement in upper limb rehabilitation.
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.