ReviewHealth science reports2026
Extended Reality in Rehabilitation Medicine: A Systematic Review.
Review in Health science reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the application of extended reality (XR) technologies, comprising virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), in rehabilitation medicine, assessing their effects across diverse rehabilitation domains and clinical outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive search of three biomedical databases was conducted, yielding 58 randomized controlled trials that examined XR interventions in geriatric, neurological, orthopedic, and pediatric rehabilitation. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Results were qualitatively synthesized according to intervention characteristics and outcome measures. Results: The findings indicate that XR technologies can enhance rehabilitation outcomes, including improvements in motor and cognitive function, pain management, psychological well-being, and quality of life. XR interventions were shown to improve balance, strength, and cognitive and psychological function in older adults; facilitate motor recovery and reduce neuropathic pain in neurological populations; support postoperative rehabilitation and conservative interventions in orthopedic patients; and enhance engagement and therapeutic goals attainment in pediatric patients. Conclusion: XR technologies present a promising and innovative approach to rehabilitation, offering personalized and engaging therapeutic experiences. Clinicians should leverage XR technologies to empower patients and optimize clinical 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.