ReviewProgress in rehabilitation medicine2026
Exploring Usability and User Engagement in Fully Immersive Virtual Reality Systems for Upper Limb Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.
Review in Progress in rehabilitation medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Virtual Reality Training for Post-Stroke Upper Limb Hemiparesis.Neurology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Fully immersive virtual reality (FIVR) systems are emerging as innovative tools for upper limb stroke rehabilitation. These systems provide immersive, interactive environments that foster motivation, engagement, and functional recovery. This scoping review examines the usability of FIVR systems for upper limb rehabilitation among stroke survivors, focusing on evaluation methods, patient and therapist experiences, and barriers to adoption. Methods: The review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus identified 20 eligible studies. Data were extracted on study design, participant demographics, VR system characteristics, software, task type, game/task elements, usability evaluation methods, and key findings. Results: The findings demonstrate generally positive benefits in terms of usability and engagement, with participants indicating both motivation and enjoyment during FIVR interventions. However, there was considerable variability in assessment methods, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches, as well as in hardware, software, interaction methods and no standardized framework. Common challenges included mild side effects (e.g., dizziness), technical complexity, and the need to adapt to patients' varying abilities. Such limitations highlight gaps in the standardization and replicability of usability assessment across studies. Conclusions: FIVR systems offer potential as supplements to conventional therapy, providing engaging and personalized rehabilitation experiences. Improving usability assessment through standardized frameworks, addressing technical and accessibility barriers, and ensuring the adaptability of interventions to individual patient needs are critical to optimizing effectiveness and supporting broader clinical adoption.
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.