Table 3 Results of all the RCTs which explored the effect of mobile app types on a motor paresis metric

Therapy apps

Grau-Pellicer et al., 2020

10MWT comfort (m/sec)

IG 1.18 ± 0.35, CG 0.69 ± 0.29

Difference: 0.49 ± 0.06, p = 0.002

Gait speed (10MWT) and walking endurance (6MWT) in the IG improved post-intervention. In the CG, there was a diminishing gait speed and endurance trend

For falls risk (TUG), IG improved from fallers to non-fallers. CG remained fallers

10MWT fast (m/sec)

IG 1.52 ± 0.53, CG 0.85 ± 0.35

Difference: 0.67 ± 0.18, p = 0.002

6MWT (m)

IG 380.90 ± 102.69, CG: 238.62 ± 103.81

Difference: 142.28 ± 1.116, p = 0.004

TUG (sec)

IG 9.59 ± 3.15, CG 24.42 ± 22.97

Difference: -14.83 ± 19.82 p = 0.057

Kang et al., 2017

R-HBGS Mid-face in IG

R-HBGS Mid-face in CG

Base: 2.9 ± 0.7, 2-weeks: 2.1 ± 1.0, p < 0.05

Base: 2.5 ± 0.5, 2-weeks: 2.1 ± 0.7, p < 0.05

Compared with the CG, the IG who received orofacial exercises with the use of the tablet PC mirror app showed greater improvement in facial movement after stroke

R-HBGS mouth in IG

R-HBGS mouth in CG

Base: 3.3 ± 1.6, 2-weeks: 2.3 ± 1.6, p < 0.05

Base: 3.5 ± 1.1, 2-weeks: 2.8 ± 1.3, P < 0.05

Δ facial movement improvement (mm)

Difference: IG 1.45 ± 0.90, CG 0.55 ± 1, p = 0.04

Ratio: IG: 0.30 ± 0.19, CG: 0.11 ± 0.12, p = 0.01

Jang et al., 2016

MMT WE in IG

Base: 3.40 ± 0.84, 4 weeks: 3.80 ± 0.42, p < 0.05

By finger training using the therapy app for 4 weeks, hemiparetic stroke patients achieved functional recovery of the hand and motor recovery of the wrist and hand

MMT FE in IG

Base: 2.90 ± 0.57, 4 weeks: 3.30 ± 0.67, p < 0.05

MFT in IG

Base: 8.10 ± 3.11, 4 weeks: 10.10 ± 3.06, p < 0.05

PPT in IG

Base: 3.60 ± 3.37, 4 weeks: 5.20 ± 4.10, p < 0.05

MMT (WF, FF) in IG

No statistical difference

All MMT, MFT, PPT in CG

No statistical difference

Rehab videos

Chung et al., 2020

ΔMFAC

IG 1.7 ± 1.2, CG 1.0 ± 1.0, p = 0.036

Video HEP were superior to paper based HEP for mobility gain

Moon et al., 2019

ΔFDS

IG -11.50 ± 5.32, CG -9.50 ± 4.50, p = 0.368

No significant difference between groups for severity of dysphagia, penetration, or aspiration

ΔPAS

IG -2.75 ± 0.71, CG -2.63 ± 0.92, p = 0.606

Rehab videos + reminders

Emmerson et al., 2017

Δ WMFT mean time (sec)

IG -8 ± 13, CG -4 ± 13, p = 0.101

No group differences in upper limb function from HEP videos and reminders vs paper-based HEP

Δ WMFT grip power (kg)

IG 1.4 ± 2.5, CG 0.9 ± 4.5, p = 0.682

ΔWMFT functional score

IG 0.2 ± 0.2, CG 0.2 ± 0.5, p = 0.454