What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes
Version 3 2024-06-18, 18:29Version 3 2024-06-18, 18:29
Version 2 2024-06-05, 06:41Version 2 2024-06-05, 06:41
Version 1 2020-05-15, 14:03Version 1 2020-05-15, 14:03
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-18, 18:29 authored by A Aminov, JM Rogers, S Middleton, Karen CaeyenberghsKaren Caeyenberghs, PH Wilson© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Virtual-reality based rehabilitation (VR) shows potential as an engaging and effective way to improve upper-limb function and cognitive abilities following a stroke. However, an updated synthesis of the literature is needed to capture growth in recent research and address gaps in our understanding of factors that may optimize training parameters and treatment effects. Methods: Published randomized controlled trials comparing VR to conventional therapy were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Treatment effects (Hedge's g) were estimated using a random effects model, with motor and functional outcomes between different protocols compared at the Body Structure/Function, Activity, and Participation levels of the International Classification of Functioning. Results: Thirty-three studies were identified, including 971 participants (492 VR participants). VR produced small to medium overall effects (g = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.33-0.59, p < 0.01), above and beyond conventional therapies. Small to medium effects were observed on Body Structure/Function (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28-0.55; p < 0.01) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.34-0.60, p < 0.01), while Participation outcomes failed to reach significance (g = 0.38; 95% CI: -0.29-1.04, p = 0.27). Superior benefits for Body Structure/Function (g = 0.56) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.62) were observed when examining outcomes only from purpose-designed VR systems. Preliminary results (k = 4) suggested small to medium effects for cognitive outcomes (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28-0.55; p < 0.01). Moderator analysis found no advantage for higher doses of VR, massed practice training schedules, or greater time since injury. Conclusion: VR can effect significant gains on Body Structure/Function and Activity level outcomes, including improvements in cognitive function, for individuals who have sustained a stroke. The evidence supports the use of VR as an adjunct for stroke rehabilitation, with effectiveness evident for a variety of platforms, training parameters, and stages of recovery.
History
Journal
Journal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationVolume
15Article number
ARTN 29Pagination
1 - 24Location
EnglandPublisher DOI
Open access
- Yes
Link to full text
ISSN
1743-0003eISSN
1743-0003Language
EnglishPublication classification
C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journalIssue
1Publisher
BMCUsage metrics
Keywords
Science & TechnologyTechnologyLife Sciences & BiomedicineEngineering, BiomedicalNeurosciencesRehabilitationEngineeringNeurosciences & NeurologyCognitionMeta-analysisMotor performanceStrokeVirtual realityREALITY-BASED REHABILITATIONUPPER EXTREMITY FUNCTIONFILE-DRAWER PROBLEMARM MOTOR RECOVERYQUALITY-OF-LIFEVIDEO-GAMESINTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONFUNCTIONAL RECOVERYVISUAL-PERCEPTIONSUBACUTE STROKE3209 Neurosciences4003 Biomedical engineering
Licence
Exports
RefWorksRefWorks
BibTeXBibTeX
Ref. managerRef. manager
EndnoteEndnote
DataCiteDataCite
NLMNLM
DCDC