Metaverse-Related and Immersive Digital Technologies in Neurorehabilitation: A Scoping Review.
MohammadHossein Sahami Gilan, Azin Hasani, Negar Farajzadeh Dehkordi
PMID 42769685WHAT IT FOUND
11 of 19 heterogeneous studies of immersive digital neurorehabilitation reported improvements, but no formal checks of study quality mean this is not proof of efficacy.
Key findings
01The review included 19 studies, and 11 reported significant improvements, but no formal quality or risk-of-bias assessment was conducted.
02Only 5 of the 19 studies were randomized controlled trials, so the evidence base remains exploratory.
03None of the 19 included studies systematically collected or reported adverse reactions, so safety is unknown.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
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 review found only 19 studies, so it maps a new field rather than proving treatment effects. Study designs, technologies, participants, and outcomes varied too much to compare directly. No formal quality or risk-of-bias assessment was done. Only 5 studies were randomized controlled trials. Adherence and dropout were poorly reported. None of the included studies reported adverse reactions. The search excluded non-English studies and people with severe cognitive impairment, so it may not apply to all patients. Hardware cost, cybersickness, and technical literacy were discussed but not measured in the included studies.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 11 of 19 improvements as proof that metaverse or VR therapy works better than usual care. The review did not assess study quality, many studies were not randomized, and none reported adverse events.