ReviewGeroScience2026
Impact of mixed reality on the care of the elderly: a scoping review.
Review in GeroScience, 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
Population aging requires innovative technological strategies that promote autonomy, functionality, and well-being in old age. In this context, mixed reality (MR), a technology that integrates physical and digital elements in a shared and interactive real-time environment, emerges as a promising alternative. To analyze the current state of evidence on the use of MR in the care of older adults, including its theoretical and practical implications. Scientific articles were reviewed in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and EBSCO. Data from 15 studies were organized into an analytical matrix to identify methodological and impact patterns. MR interventions have shown promising preliminary results in physical rehabilitation, cognitive stimulation, emotional well-being, and social interaction by combining sensory feedback, functional tasks, and meaningful experiences. The included studies represent heterogeneous MR configurations along the virtual reality continuum, including transparent or pass-through optical viewers, VR-HMD-based systems with real-world interaction, and sensor- or projection-based platforms. Rather than demonstrating superiority over virtual or augmented reality, the evidence suggests specific advantages related to contextual awareness, physical interaction, and cognitive-motor-affective integration. These features were associated with potential improvements in mobility, executive functions, motivation, positive emotions, and social presence, supporting an interpretive cognitive-motor-emotional framework and the design of safe, meaningful, and context-sensitive interventions. MR shows promising potential for the care of older adults by improving cognitive, motor, emotional, and social outcomes. However, current evidence remains preliminary due to small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, a scarcity of comparative studies, and a lack of longitudinal evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42406279What 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.