Table 5 Conclusions of the cost outcomes of the included studies
From: Economic analysis of digital motor rehabilitation technologies: a systematic review
Author | Rehabilitation technology (model) | HT≥6 mois | Identification, measurement, and valuation of resources in both arms | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Wagner et al., 2011 | Robot | YES | YES | Lower cost |
Hesse et al.,2014 | Robot (Bi-Manu Track) | NO | NO | Lower cost |
Stefano et al., 2014 | Robot (NeReBot) | NO | NO | Lower cost |
Lloréns et al., 2016 | Virtual reality | NO | NO | Higher cost |
Bustamante Valles et al., 2016 | Robot (Ness for upper extremity, the Motomed Viva 2 for upper extremities) | NO | NO | Lower cost |
Housley et al., 2016 | Robot | NO | NO | Lower cost |
Adie et al., 2017 | WiiTM sport | YES | YES | Equivalent |
Islam and Brunner, 2019 | Virtual reality (Bi-Manu-Trainer (Reha-Stim Medtech Ltd., Switzerland)) | NO | YES | Higher cost |
Prvu Bettger et al., 2020 | Virtual reality | YES | YES | Lower cost |
Rémy-Néris et al., 2021 | Robot (Armeo Spring® HOCOMA) | YES | YES | Equivalent |
Fernandez-Garcia et al., 2021 | Robot (MIT-Manus robotic) | YES | YES | Higher cost |