%0 Journal Article
%@ 1438-8871
%I JMIR Publications
%V 27
%N 
%P e57957
%T Poststroke eHealth Technologies–Based Rehabilitation for Upper Limb Recovery: Systematic Review
%A Rampioni,Margherita
%A Leonzi,Sara
%A Antognoli,Luca
%A Mura,Anna
%A Stara,Vera
%+ Innovative Models for Aging Care and Technology, IRCCS-INRCA, Istituto Nazionale di Riposo e Cura per Anziani, via Santa Margherita 5, Ancona, 60124, Italy, 39 +39 071 8004614, m.rampioni@inrca.it
%K stroke
%K rehabilitation
%K technology-based interventions
%K upper limb
%K technologies-based rehabilitation
%K limb
%K systematic review
%K cerebral vascular diseases
%K patient
%K effectiveness
%K database
%K therapy
%K conventional therapy
%K mobile phone
%D 2025
%7 4.3.2025
%9 Review
%J J Med Internet Res
%G English
%X Background: Stroke is one of the most common cerebral vascular diseases, usually affecting people aged 60 years and older. It leads to a variety of disabilities requiring motor and cognitive rehabilitation. Poststroke rehabilitation is critical for recovery, particularly for upper limb impairments, which affect approximately 80% of stroke survivors. Conventional rehabilitation often faces barriers such as cost, accessibility, and patient adherence. In contrast, eHealth technologies offer a promising alternative by providing accessible, cost-effective, and engaging rehabilitation solutions. Objective: While numerous systematic reviews have explored various aspects of technology-based rehabilitation for poststroke upper limb recovery, there is a notable lack of comprehensive synthesis of these findings. This gap presents challenges, primarily due to the focus on specific technologies, which complicates understanding the overall effectiveness of these interventions. Consequently, clinicians and researchers may find it difficult to assess the field holistically, potentially hindering informed decision-making in clinical practice. This review synthesizes evidence from systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of eHealth technology–based interventions for upper limb recovery in poststroke individuals. Two main questions are examined: (1) Are eHealth technology–based therapies more or equally effective than conventional therapies for stroke rehabilitation? (2) What are the main clinical considerations for low-cost eHealth technology–based rehabilitation? Methods: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar using predefined inclusion criteria based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design (PICOS) framework. Systematic reviews published in English without date restrictions were included. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) flowchart guided study selection. Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) criteria. Results: A total of 1792 records were screened, resulting in 7 systematic reviews published between 2019 and 2023 being included. These reviews encompassed 95 studies involving 2995 participants with a mean age of 58.8 years across acute, subacute, and chronic stroke phases. Interventions included telerehabilitation, mobile health (mHealth) apps, augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), wearable devices, and exergames. While AR and VR demonstrated potential benefits when combined with conventional therapies (eg, AR showing significant improvements in upper limb function with a standardized mean difference 0.657; P<.001), evidence for stand-alone effectiveness remained inconclusive due to heterogeneity in study designs, intervention protocols, and outcome measures. Most reviews were rated as critically low quality due to methodological limitations. Conclusions: eHealth technologies hold promise for enhancing upper limb rehabilitation post stroke by addressing barriers such as cost and accessibility while providing engaging interventions. However, the field remains fragmented with insufficient evidence to establish clear efficacy. Future research should focus on standardizing protocols, optimizing neurorehabilitation principles such as dosage and task specificity, and improving methodological rigor to evaluate these interventions’ long-term impact better. 
%M 40053744
%R 10.2196/57957
%U https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e57957
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/57957
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40053744