ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2026
Metaverse-Related and Immersive Digital Technologies in Neurorehabilitation: A Scoping Review.
Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 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
Objective: To delineate current research on the use of metaverse technologies in neurorehabilitation, pinpointing essential intervention attributes, target demographics, documented results, and evidence gaps in this nascent domain. Data Sources: A comprehensive search was performed across 7 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar, including all papers published through April 19, 2025. However, only a subset of studies that employed immersive virtual reality (VR)/augmented reality or early metaverse-related technologies were included. Study Selection: Of 5681 initial records, studies were included if they investigated immersive technologies for the neurorehabilitation of human participants with neurological conditions and were published in English. Nineteen studies fulfilled the final eligibility criteria after screening. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently recorded data using a standardized form. The extracted items included study design, population characteristics, technology type, intervention specifics (duration, frequency), outcome measures, and key findings. Data Synthesis: A narrative synthesis was conducted on the 19 included studies. VR was the most frequently used technology, accounting for 63% of studies. However, a subset of studies also incorporated early metaverse-related elements alongside VR for various neurological conditions. More than half of the studies (57.9%) reported significant improvements in motor, cognitive, or emotional domains. High methodological heterogeneity was observed, with only 26.3% of studies being randomized controlled trials. Conclusions: Metaverse-related and immersive digital interventions show promise for improving functional outcomes in neurorehabilitation; however, the evidence base remains preliminary, heterogeneous, and limited in terms of long-term follow-up. The therapeutic effectiveness and scalability of these therapies must be established via rigorous, large-scale trials with consistent procedures and long-term follow-up.
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.