ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Clinical Application of Wearable Devices in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of Safety, Feasibility, and Adherence.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesStroke is a major cause of long-term disability worldwide. Wearable devices have shown potential in supporting rehabilitation, yet evidence on their safety, feasibility, and adherence remains fragmented. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and adherence of wearable devices in stroke rehabilitation.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete was conducted in January 2026. Studies involving participants with a confirmed diagnosis of stroke were included regardless of study design. Studies were eligible if wearable devices were used as part of rehabilitation interventions and reported outcomes related to safety, feasibility, or adherence. Adverse events were categorized according to severity, while feasibility was assessed using indicators such as recruitment rate, dropout rate, and adherence rate.
resultsA total of 38 studies involving 1121 participants were included in this review. Available evidence generally suggested a favorable safety profile for wearable device-assisted rehabilitation, with most reported adverse events being mild and primarily consisting of skin irritation, pressure-related discomfort, muscle fatigue, localized pain, and transient discomfort. Recruitment rates ranged from 5.8% to 100%, indicating substantial variability in implementation feasibility across studies. Only four studies reported adherence-related outcomes, and considerable variation existed in the definitions and assessment methods used. Most included studies reported intervention completion, attendance, or dropout outcomes rather than directly evaluating adherence.
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that wearable devices are generally safe and potentially feasible for stroke rehabilitation. However, substantial heterogeneity across studies, inconsistent adverse event reporting, and limited adherence data restrict the strength of current conclusions. Adherence remains an important evidence gap, as it was infrequently reported and inconsistently defined. Future research should establish standardized reporting criteria for safety, feasibility, and adherence outcomes and evaluate wearable device interventions in larger and more diverse populations with longer follow-up periods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.