SynthesisEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2026
The adoption of innovative technologies in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine: state of the art and unmet needs.
Synthesis in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of innovative technologies in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) has significantly advanced patient care, enhancing functional recovery and optimizing rehabilitation processes. Despite growing clinical adoption, a translational gap persists between technological advancements and routine clinical implementation. This study aims to map the available evidence on rehabilitation technologies, identifying their applications, effectiveness, and existing limitations.
methodsA mapping review of systematic reviews was conducted to explore the role of technological innovations in PRM. A systematic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) database was performed up to July 14
resultsOf 5124 identified records, 623 systematic reviews (12.2%) met the inclusion criteria. Neurological conditions represented the primary focus (56.8%), followed by musculoskeletal (23.7%) and cardiovascular rehabilitation (11.5%). The most frequently studied technologies included virtual reality (28.5%), non-invasive brain stimulation (18.7%), robotics (16.3%), and telerehabilitation (13.4%). Most studies assessed motor recovery (45%), pain management (22%), and cognitive or language rehabilitation (18%). Only 4.8% addressed HTA aspects such as cost-effectiveness and acceptability, highlighting a gap in real-world implementation studies.
conclusionsThis mapping review underscores the increasing interest in technology-assisted rehabilitation but also highlights critical gaps, particularly in HTA assessments and training for PRM specialists. Standardized guidelines, structured training programs, and economic evaluations are essential to optimize integrating rehabilitation technologies into clinical practice. Further research should focus on long-term efficacy, accessibility, and sustainability to ensure equitable access to innovative rehabilitation solutions.
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.