Tools and methods for assessing the usability and related aspects of usability of extended reality and telerehabilitation technologies in stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review.

This was a scoping review, so it mapped what tools were used but did not judge whether the included studies were high quality. Most included studies were published in English, and grey literature was not searched, so relevant work in other languages or unpublished formats may have been missed. Reviewers were not blinded during screening and no formal check was made of how often they agreed, which may have affected study selection. Many studies used custom usability questionnaires without reporting whether they were reliable or valid, so comparisons across studies are limited. Study sample sizes varied widely, from 1 to 132 participants, and the middle value was 15, so the review does not show how common these tools are in large services. Most participants were in the chronic stroke phase, and most studies were from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Oceania, with only one from Africa, so findings may not fit acute settings or settings with limited rehabilitation resources.

The paper states only that the funder was named INTER Grant. It does not report detailed author conflicts of interest or whether the funder designed the study.

Do not read this as evidence that virtual reality or remote rehabilitation improves stroke recovery. The review only mapped usability assessment tools, and many custom questionnaires were not reported as reliable or valid.