Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 357

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness, Usability, and Cost-Benefit of a Virtual Reality–Based Telerehabilitation Program for Balance Recovery After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Lloréns, Roberto, Noé, Enrique, Colomer, Carolina, Alcañiz, Mariano·2015·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

OBJECTIVES First, to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR)-based telerehabilitation program in the balance recovery of individuals with hemiparesis after stroke in comparison with an in-clinic program; second, to compare the subjective experiences; and third, to contrast the costs of both programs. DESIGN Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING Neurorehabilitation unit. PARTICIPANTS Chronic outpatients with stroke (N=30) with residual hemiparesis. INTERVENTIONS Twenty 45-minute training sessions with the telerehabilitation system, conducted 3 times a week, in the clinic or in the home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES First, Berg Balance Scale for balance assessment. The Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment balance and gait subscales, and the Brunel Balance Assessment were secondary outcome measures. Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline, 8 weeks (posttreatment), and 12 weeks (follow-up). Second, the System Usability Scale and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory for subjective experiences. Third, cost (in dollars). RESULTS Significant improvement in both groups (in-clinic group [control] and a home-based telerehabilitation group) from the initial to the final assessment in the Berg Balance Scale (ηp(2)=.68; P=.001), in the balance (ηp(2)=.24; P=.006) and gait (ηp(2)=.57, P=.001) subscales of the Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment, and in the Brunel Balance Assessment (control: χ(2)=15.0; P=.002; experimental: χ(2)=21.9; P=.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in any balance scale or in the feedback questionnaires. With regard to subjective experiences, both groups considered the VR system similarly usable and motivating. The in-clinic intervention resulted in more expenses than did the telerehabilitation intervention ($654.72 per person). CONCLUSIONS First, VR-based telerehabilitation interventions can promote the reacquisition of locomotor skills associated with balance in the same way as do in-clinic interventions, both complemented with a conventional therapy program; second, the usability of and motivation to use the 2 interventions can be similar; and third, telerehabilitation interventions can involve savings that vary depending on each scenario.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.019

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 357

Metadata

Authors
Lloréns, R., Noé, E., Colomer, C., & Alcañiz, M.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
96
Issue
3
Pages
418-425.e2
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022819874
Cited by
357
References
3
FWCI
11.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness, Usability, and Cost-Benefit of a Virtual Reality–Based Telerehabilitation Program for Balance Recovery After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.019
The paper
Lloréns, R., Noé, E., Colomer, C., & Alcañiz, M. (2015). Effectiveness, Usability, and Cost-Benefit of a Virtual Reality–Based Telerehabilitation Program for Balance Recovery After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.019

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.