Assessment of Upper Limb Function Using Virtual Reality Technologies in Adults with Neurological Disorders: A...

Background: Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly being explored as a tool for upper limb (UL) assessment in adults with neurological disorders. This review synthesizes the available evidence on VR-based UL assessments by analyzing their psychometric properties and potential role in clinical and research settings. Methods: This systematic review followed the Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (PRISMA-COSMIN) and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. Data extraction was independently performed by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Psychometric evidence was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, including risk of bias assessment, evaluation and synthesis of measurement properties, and evidence grading according to GRADE. Additionally, the clinical application context of each VR assessment was examined, and a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis was conducted to explore factors affecting implementation and future development in neurorehabilitation. Results: Twenty VR-based UL assessments were identified. VR-Box and Blocks Test represented the largest body of evidence and was the only assessment implemented across all immersion levels, with promising findings in both stroke and Parkinson's disease populations (Grade B recommendation). Immersive Action Research Arm Test demonstrated the strongest psychometric profile among the stroke sample (Grade B recommendation). Additionally, the Virtual Occupational Therapy Assistant and SaeboVR^® incorporated the most ecologically valid tasks, reflecting activities closer to daily life performance. Test-retest reliability and construct validity were the most frequently evaluated measurement properties. Conclusions: VR-based assessments represent promising tools for UL assessment. However, despite most systems receiving a Grade B recommendation, the supporting evidence remained low or very low certainty due to methodological shortcomings and incomplete psychometric evaluation. Therefore, more rigorous and methodologically robust research is needed to strengthen the evidence supporting their implementation in clinical practice as a complementary tool for UL assessment.