The adoption of innovative technologies in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine: state of the art and unmet needs.
Sanaz Pournajaf, Giovanni Morone, Sofia Straudi and 6 others
PMID 42118525WHAT IT FOUND
Most mapped rehabilitation technology studies covered neurological conditions and motor recovery.
Virtual reality, non-invasive brain stimulation, robotics and tele-rehabilitation were common, but quality appraisal was absent.
Key findings
01The mapping review screened 5124 records and included 623 studies after title and abstract screening.
02Most included studies focused on neurological conditions (56.8%), and motor recovery was the focus of 45% of studies.
03Virtual reality (28.5%), non-invasive brain stimulation (18.7%), robotics (16.3%), and tele-rehabilitation (13.4%) were the most common technologies.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for SLPs
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 included studies were heterogeneous in design, population and intervention, so they cannot be compared directly. The review did not formally appraise the quality or risk of bias of the included systematic reviews. Long-term follow-up was lacking, so lasting effects are unclear. Most evidence was in neurological conditions, while musculoskeletal and cardiovascular rehabilitation were underrepresented. Health technology assessment was incomplete, with few studies evaluating regulatory, economic and organizational aspects. Real-world implementation data remain scarce for many technologies.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest with any financial organization. The research activity of one author was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health through Ricerca Corrente.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the mapping percentages or reported efficacy as proof that a technology will help your patient. The review did not appraise the quality of included systematic reviews, and it reports that robotics cost-effectiveness remains inconclusive.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →