Enhancing lower-limb rehabilitation: a scoping review of augmented reality environment.
Yuanyuan Liu, Qiong Zhang, Weiyi Li
PMID 40394647WHAT IT FOUND
Most AR lower-limb rehab systems rely on visual cues and headsets in small, lab-based trials.
They map tasks like gait and balance to virtual overlays, but evidence of patient benefit is absent.
Key findings
01The review identified 25 studies involving 452 participants, ranging from healthy individuals to those with stroke, Parkinson’s, and multiple sclerosis.
02Most included studies had small sample sizes (mean approximately 20 participants) and were conducted in controlled laboratory environments rather than clinical or home settings.
03Feedback in these systems was primarily visual (task guidance, motion status, background environment), with auditory and haptic modalities used far less frequently.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The search was limited to English-language peer-reviewed journals, potentially missing relevant conference proceedings or gray literature. The included studies had small sample sizes and limited demographic diversity, particularly lacking older adults. Interventions varied widely in protocol and outcome measures, preventing any quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis. Nearly all studies were conducted in controlled laboratory environments, with only one in a clinical setting and none in home or community contexts. The review did not assess hardware usability, cost-effectiveness, or integration into routine practice.
Declared interests
The work was funded by The Cutting-edge Interdisciplinary Project of Beihang University, the Beige Institute of China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this review as evidence that AR improves patient outcomes. The authors explicitly state that the varied protocols and small sample sizes of the included studies precluded any quantitative synthesis or effectiveness analysis.