ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Motivation in motor training interventions after stroke-a systematic review.
Review 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Motivation plays an important role in the rehabilitation process and can significantly influence its success. The objective of this systematic review was to identify which therapy interventions targeting motor improvement after stroke have also been evaluated in terms of their motivational effects. Method: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in August 2025 using the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and PEDro. Randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they reported at least one outcome related to both motor performance and motivation. Relevant trials were identified, screened, and summarized in accordance with the PRISMA reporting guidelines. For each assessment, the direction of effect was estimated. The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (Trial-No. CRD42023448438). Results: Overall, motivation was measured only rarely. 17 trials including a total of 521 stroke survivors met the inclusion criteria. In general, all included studies showed a high risk of bias due to the inability to blind the intervention. Exergaming was the most frequently investigated intervention, others described animal-assisted therapy, smart technology and boxing. Four exergame trials and one animal-assisted trial demonstrated beneficial effects of the intervention on motivation and motor performance. Conclusion: Current evidence on the impact of motor interventions after stroke on motivation is weak. Exergames seems to have promising potential to motivate stroke patients and improve motor performance; however, the underlying mechanisms remain insufficiently understood. Social interaction, effective in one animal-assisted therapy, represents another promising avenue. Overall, motivation and its standardized assessment warrant greater research attention to enhance therapeutic 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.