CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMedical Practices and RehabilitationSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction

High-Tech Home-Based Rehabilitation after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Bok, Soo-Kyung, Song, Youngshin, Lim, Ancho, Jin, Sohyun, Kim, Nagyeong, Ko, Geumbo·2023·Journal of Clinical Medicine
DOI 10.3390/jcm12072668PMC PMC10095213
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

(1) Background: To improve existing rehabilitation technologies, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the effect size of home-based rehabilitation using robotic, virtual reality, and game devices on physical function for stroke survivors. (2) Methods: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and CINAHL were used to search the randomized controlled trials that applied technologies via home-based rehabilitation, such as virtual reality, robot-assisted devices, and games. The effect size (Hedges’s g) of technology type and affected limb on physical function were calculated. (3) Results: Ten studies were included. The effect size of home-based rehabilitation in virtual reality had the greatest value (Hedges’s g, 0.850; 95% CI, 0.314–1.385), followed by robot-assisted devices (Hedges’s g, 0.120; 95% CI, 0.003–0.017) and games (Hedges’s g, −0.162; 95% CI, −0.036 to −0.534). The effect size was larger in the upper limbs (Hedges’s g, 0.287; 95% CI, 0.128–0.447) than in the lower limbs (Hedges’s g, −0.113; 95% CI, −0.547 to 0.321). (4) Conclusions: Virtual reality home rehabilitation was highly effective for physical function compared to other rehabilitation technologies. Interventions that consisted of a pre-structured and tailored program applied to the upper limbs were effective for physical function and psychological outcomes.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 RCTs (761 stroke survivors) found that high-tech home-based rehabilitation had moderate-to-low efficacy for physical function after stroke, with virtual reality showing the largest effect. Virtual reality and upper-limb, pre-structured/tailored programs were most effective, whereas game interventions were not significant.

Key findings

  • Ten studies were included, with 761 participants (experimental 383; control 378); mean ages were 60.4 and 59.3 years, and intervention duration ranged from 3 to 10 weeks.
  • Virtual reality had the largest effect size (Hedges’s g, 0.850; 95% CI, 0.314–1.385; I² = 77.5%; Q-value = 35.7, p < 0.001), followed by robot-assisted devices (Hedges’s g, 0.129; 95% CI, 0.025–0.232; I² = 0%; Q-value = 12.3, p = 0.015); games were not significant (Hedges’s g, −0.162; 95% CI, −0.534 to 0.210; I² = 77.4%; Q-value = 22.1, p < 0.001).
  • Upper-limb interventions had a larger effect size (Hedges’s g, 0.291; 95% CI, 0.133–0.449; I² = 62.1%) than lower-limb interventions (Hedges’s g, −0.113; 95% CI, −0.547 to 0.32; I² = 73.3%), though the between-study difference was not statistically significant (Q-value = 2.939, p = 0.086).
  • Fail-safe N was 164 for the systematic review and 37 for the meta-analysis, and the authors concluded there was no publication bias.

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines, though not registered; databases searched were PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, and PsyINFO, with Google Scholar used to identify missing papers, from inception to 28 February 2021.
  • Included randomized controlled trials of home-dwelling stroke survivors receiving home-based rehabilitation technologies (virtual reality, robot-assisted devices, or games) versus usual/conventional care, with physical function outcomes.
  • Two research teams independently screened, coded, and appraised studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool; meta-analysis used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0 with Hedges’s g, random-effects models, I² heterogeneity, Q-values between groups, and fail-safe N.

Limitations

  • The authors state that PERSiST guidelines were not used; intervention content in included papers was unclear, limiting accurate technical classification; the database search was limited, so studies may have been missed; and lower-limb evidence was heterogeneous and based on only two studies while upper-limb studies predominated (eight studies).
  • Evident from the text: the abstract and results section report inconsistent effect sizes/confidence intervals for robot-assisted devices (abstract: Hedges’s g, 0.120; 95% CI, 0.003–0.017 vs. results: Hedges’s g, 0.129; 95% CI, 0.025–0.232) and for upper-limb effects (abstract: 0.287 vs. results: 0.291).
  • Evident from the text: heterogeneity was high in several analyses (VR I² = 77.5%; games I² = 77.4%; upper limb I² = 62.1%; lower limb I² = 73.3%), and the meta-analysis included only 10 studies, with 3 VR, 3 game, and 4 robot-assisted device studies.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jcm12072668

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

10 of 13 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    A limitation of the review by Hatem et al. was that it focused solely on upper limb function without focusing on the program delivery method or the effect on any other body part.

    “Another limitation of this review was that they focused solely on upper limb function without focusing on the program delivery method or the effect on any other body part.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Hatem, 2016, Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: A multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery, Front. Hum. Neurosci. source
  • Findingown data

    The effect size was significantly different by limb (between-study Q = 2.939, p = 0.086).

    “The effect size was significantly different by limb (between study Q-value = 2.939, p = 0.086) (Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    The two studies on lower extremity function selected in this study are heterogeneous.

    “Notably, the two studies on lower extremity function selected in this study are heterogeneous, and the studies included a large amount of upper limb research.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In home-based rehabilitation after stroke, the effect size on physical function was larger in the upper limbs than in the lower limbs.

    “The effect size was larger in the upper limbs (Hedges’s g, 0.287; 95% CI, 0.128–0.447) than in the lower limbs (Hedges’s g, −0.113; 95% CI, −0.547 to 0.321).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Heterogeneities were found in upper and lower limb studies.

    “Heterogeneities were found in upper and lower limb studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • May combine two claims. 20

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In a review by Hatem et al., robot-assisted devices and virtual reality were integrated as adjuvant therapies into stroke because of a lack of evidence even in mirror therapy.

    “In a review by Hatem et al. that evaluated the effects of various rehabilitation interventions on upper limb function after stroke, RDs and VR were integrated as adjuvant therapies into stroke because of a lack of evidence even in mirror therapy [6].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Hatem, 2016, Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: A multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery, Front. Hum. Neurosci. source

      The robot-assisted therapy section (Supplementary Table 17) says there are insufficient arguments for integrating robot-assisted therapy into stroke rehabilitation. The virtual reality section (Supplementary Table 18) supports VR as an adjuvant therapy, but on the basis of sufficient evidence, not a lack of it. The mirror therapy section (Supplementary Table 9) likewise reports sufficient evidence supporting its integration. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Chen et al. reviewed 31 articles that utilized a technology-based home rehabilitation service and defined 6 types of technologies, but did not propose scientific parameters such as effect size for each technology.

    “Chen et al. also reviewed 31 articles that utilized a technology-based home rehabilitation service and defined 6 types of technologies (games, robotics, virtual reality, etc.), but they did not propose scientific parameters, such as effect size, for each technology [5].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Chen, 2019, Home-based technologies for stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review, Int. J. Med. Inform. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    PERSiST is recently recommended as a guideline for systematic review research in the field of sports.

    “However, PERSiST (Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science), which is recently recommended as a guideline for SR research in the field of sports [28], was not used in this study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Ardern, 2022, Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: The persist (implementing Prisma in exercise, rehabilitation, sport medicine and sports science) guidance, Br. J. Sport. Med. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Face-to-face home-based rehabilitation remains impersonal and a cost burden to both clinicians and patients.

    “Although face-to-face home-based rehabilitation provides individualized services via physical consults from the rehabilitation team, it remains impersonal and a cost burden to both clinicians and patients [4].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] Tousignant, 2015, Cost analysis of in-home telerehabilitation for post-knee arthroplasty, J. Med. Internet Res. source

      The Discussion’s Principal Findings describe clinician travel time and distance-dependent costs for home visits, supporting a qualified cost concern. The paper does not describe face-to-face visits as impersonal or establish a cost burden for patients; it also says home-visit costs were not higher overall. Our copy provides section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    PERSiST was not used in this study, which is a limitation.

    “However, PERSiST (Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science), which is recently recommended as a guideline for SR research in the field of sports [28], was not used in this study. This is a limitation of this study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Ardern, 2022, Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: The persist (implementing Prisma in exercise, rehabilitation, sport medicine and sports science) guidance, Br. J. Sport. Med. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Several systematic reviews have evaluated the effect of new home-technologies on patient clinical outcomes, but positive results were not always guaranteed.

    “Although several systematic reviews have evaluated the effect of new home-technologies on patient clinical outcomes, positive results were not always guaranteed [6,7,8].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [6] Hatem, 2016, Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: A multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery, Front. Hum. Neurosci. source

      The Technology supported training sections (pages unavailable) review clinical outcomes of virtual reality and robot-assisted stroke rehabilitation and find that benefits are not assured: virtual reality alone was similar to standard treatment, while robot-assisted therapy was similar or inferior. The paper discusses these technologies in clinical settings, however, and the passages do not establish that the reviewed interventions were home technologies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [7] Maier, 2019, Effect of specific over nonspecific VR-based rehabilitation on poststroke motor recovery: A systematic meta-analysis, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair source

      The Introduction reports that several meta-analyses evaluated VR technologies for stroke rehabilitation and that some found no benefit over conventional therapy. It describes home rehabilitation as a potential use of these technologies, but does not establish that this meta-analysis evaluated technologies used at home. The home-technologies qualifier is therefore not supported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [8] Rubin, 2013, Systematic review of telestroke for post-stroke care and rehabilitation, Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The results for RD are similar to existing review studies, but careful interpretation is necessary because of variable quality of traditional care in control groups.

    “Although these results are similar to the existing review studies [5,6], careful interpretation is necessary because of the variable quality of traditional care provided in the control groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [5] Chen, 2019, Home-based technologies for stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review, Int. J. Med. Inform. source
    • cites [6] Hatem, 2016, Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: A multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery, Front. Hum. Neurosci. source

      The section on robot-assisted therapy for the paretic upper extremity (Supplementary Table 17; page unavailable) reviews prior studies and reports outcomes similar or inferior to standard rehabilitation, supporting the comparison with existing reviews. It does not say that interpretation requires caution because the quality of traditional care varied across control groups. (LLM, conf=0.79)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The total number of participants in the 10 included studies was 761 (experimental 383; control 378).

    “The total number of participants was 761 (experimental, 383; control, 378).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During the review, upper limb studies were most frequent (eight studies), followed by lower limb (two studies).

    “During the review process, classifying individual studies according to intervention sites showed that upper limb studies were the most frequent (eight studies), followed by lower limb (two studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The systematic review included 50 studies meeting the search criteria, of which 10 were used in the meta-analysis.

    “50 studies meeting the search criteria were included in the qualitative analysis, of which 10 were used in the meta-analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among the included studies, 3 used VR, 3 used games, and 4 used RD rehabilitation.

    “Among the intervention types, 3 studies used VR, 3 used games, and 4 used RD rehabilitation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    Ten studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

    “Ten studies were included.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most participants were aged in their 50s and 60s and between 3 and 12 months post-stroke, although most were 3-6 months post-stroke.

    “Most participants were aged in their 50s and 60s and between 3 months and 12 months post-stroke, although most participants were 3–6 months post-stroke.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The fail-safe N was 164 for the systematic review and 37 for the meta-analysis.

    “The result showed the FSN to be 164 for the systematic review and 37 for the meta-analysis”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In the studies, participants' baseline function was defined after the acute phase of rehabilitation, whereby some degree of physical and cognitive function was recovered.

    “In the studies, the participant’s baseline function was defined after the acute phase of rehabilitation, whereby some degree of physical and cognitive function was recovered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In game studies, no difference in arm function between experimental and control group was observed, only some changes in gait.

    “However, no difference in arm function between the experimental and control group was observed, only some changes in gait.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Interventions using VR that were either a pre-structured or a tailored program for upper limbs improved the psychological factors, physical function, and ADLs of stroke patients.

    “Interventions using VR that were either a pre-structured or a tailored program for upper limbs improved the psychological factors, physical function, and ADLs of stroke patients.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among home-based rehabilitation technologies for stroke, virtual reality had the greatest effect size on physical function, followed by robot-assisted devices and games.

    “The effect size of home-based rehabilitation in virtual reality had the greatest value (Hedges’s g, 0.850; 95% CI, 0.314–1.385), followed by robot-assisted devices (Hedges’s g, 0.120; 95% CI, 0.003–0.017) and games (Hedges’s g, −0.162; 95% CI, −0.036 to −0.534).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    For allocation concealment, eight studies were low risk and two were unclear.

    “Concerning allocation concealment, eight studies were rated as a low risk of bias, but two were unclear.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines.

    “This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (PRISMA checklist; File S1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Two research groups independently searched and analyzed the literature using the same strategy.

    “Two research groups independently searched and analyzed the literature using the same strategy (years of publication, English language, search terms, and database).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Interventions that consisted of a pre-structured and tailored program applied to the upper limbs were effective for physical function and psychological outcomes.

    “Interventions that consisted of a pre-structured and tailored program applied to the upper limbs were effective for physical function and psychological outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The content of the intervention in the included studies was unclear or vaguely explained, which limited accurate technical classification by intervention type.

    “Because of the quality evaluation, limitations such as vague explanations of interventions were found in some studies.”
    • Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
      “(d) The content of the intervention presented in the included paper was unclear; hence, accurate technical classification was limited in terms of types of intervention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The review was not registered.

    “but the review was not registered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The research teams evaluated and discussed the quality of the studies according to the ROB domain criteria to determine the final risk of bias.

    “The research teams evaluated and discussed the quality of the studies according to these domain criteria to determine the final risk of bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Home-based rehabilitation allows individuals to tailor their program to meet their preferences and schedules.

    “As an alternative to inpatient rehabilitation, home-based rehabilitation allows individuals to tailor their program to meet their preferences and schedules [3].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Su, 2014, Kinect-enabled home-based rehabilitation system using Dynamic Time Warping and fuzzy logic, Appl. Soft Comput. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate each study.

    “The Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB) was used to evaluate each study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Eight studies were low risk for selective reporting.

    “Lastly, in the selective reporting domain, eight studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias (Figure 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Six studies were low risk for blinding of participants and personnel.

    “Six studies were evaluated as having a low risk of bias for the blinding of participants and personnel domain”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Hedges's g classifies 0.2 as a small effect, 0.5 as a medium effect, and 0.8 as a large effect.

    “Hedges’s g recommends classifying 0.2 for a small effect, 0.5 for a medium effect, and 0.8 for a large effect [9].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] Borenstein, 2009, Effect sizes for continuous data, Handb. Res. Synth. Meta Anal.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    All VR studies enhanced motor function and balance scores and had the largest effect size amongst the intervention types.

    “All VR studies enhanced motor function and balance scores and had the largest effect size amongst the intervention types.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Studies were searched using a limited database, so the possibility of missing some studies cannot be ruled out.

    “(e) Studies were searched using a limited database; hence, the possibility of missing some studies cannot be ruled out.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study search, selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal process were performed rigorously and systematically by following the PRISMA guidelines.

    “(a) The study search, selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal process were performed rigorously and systematically by following the PRISMA guidelines.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
33 of 33

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most of the conclusions of prior systematic reviews on new home-technologies were based on insufficient scientific data.

    “However, most of these conclusions were based on insufficient scientific data.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Home-based technologies aim to improve patients' physical function and internal motivation by encouraging their progress and goal attainment.

    “These home-based technologies aim to improve patients’ physical function and internal motivation by encouraging their progress and goal attainment.”
2 of 2

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Game intervention confidence intervals disagree

    Major

    The abstract gives a confidence interval with reversed endpoints, −0.036 to −0.534. The Results section reports −0.534 to 0.210 for the same effect estimate.

  • Limb difference called significant despite p = 0.086

    Major

    The paper calls the between-limb difference significant, although its reported p-value is 0.086. Its stated criterion for a statistically significant between-group Q-value is p < 0.001.

  • Robot-assisted effect differs between abstract and results

    Minor

    The abstract reports a robot-assisted effect of 0.120 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.003-0.017, which does not contain the reported effect. The Results section instead gives an effect of 0.129 and an interval of 0.025-0.232.

  • Upper-limb pooled estimates differ between abstract and results

    Minor

    The abstract and Results section give different effect estimates and confidence intervals for upper-limb interventions.

  • Search databases differ between abstract and methods

    Minor

    The abstract lists ProQuest among the searched databases, whereas the methods list PsyINFO instead.

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bok, S.-K., Song, Y., Lim, A., Jin, S., Kim, N., & Ko, G.
Affiliations
Chungnam National University (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Song, Youngshin
  • Lim, Ancho
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-04-03
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
2668
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/jcm12072668
PMC
PMC10095213
OpenAlex
W4362559338
Semantic Scholar
d95918618c2458c5148df65b431ead371751e224
Cited by
20
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea (2020-1221-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Keywords
stroke rehabilitation, home-based rehabilitation, virtual reality, robot-assisted therapy, game-based therapy, physical function, upper limb function, lower limb function, stroke survivors, rehabilitation technology

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-17.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-17.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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