Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Realidad virtual para la rehabilitación del accidente cerebrovascular

Appendices

Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy

#1. [mh ^"cerebrovascular disorders"] or [mh "basal ganglia cerebrovascular disease"] or [mh "brain ischemia"] or [mh "carotid artery diseases"] or [mh "intracranial arterial diseases"] or [mh “intracranial arteriovenous malformations”] or [mh "intracranial embolism and thrombosis"] or [mh "intracranial hemorrhages"] or [mh ^stroke] or [mh "brain infarction"]

#2. [mh ^"brain injuries"] or [mh ^"brain injury, chronic"]

#3. (stroke or cva or poststroke or "post‐stroke" or cerebrovasc* or cerebral next vasc*):ti,ab

#4.((cerebral* or cerebell* or brain* or vertebrobasilar) near/5 (isch*emi* or infarct* or thrombo* or emboli* or apoplexy*)):ti,ab

#5. ((brain* or cerebral* or subarachnoid) near/5 (haemorrhage* or hemorrhage* or haematoma* or hematoma* or bleed*)):ti,ab

#6. [mh ^hemiplegia] or [mh paresis]

#7. (hemipleg* or hemipar* or paresis or paretic or brain next injur*):ti,ab

#8. [mh ^"gait disorders, neurologic"]

#9. #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8

#10. [mh ^”user‐computer interface”]

#11. [mh ^computers] or [mh microcomputers] or [mh ^”computer systems”] or [mh ^software]

#12. [mh ^”computer simulation”] or [mh ^”computer‐assisted instruction”] or [mh ^”therapy, computer‐assisted”]

#13. [mh ^”computer graphics”] or [mh ^”video games”] or [mh touch [mj]]

#14. (Virtual next reality* or “virtual‐reality” or VR):ti,ab

#15. (virtual near/3 (environment* or object* or world* or treatment* or system* or program* or rehabilitation* or therap* or driving or drive* or car or tunnel or vehicle)):ti,ab

#16. (computer near/3 (simulat* or graphic* or game* or interact*)):ti,ab

#17. (computer next assist* next (therap* or treat*)):ti,ab

#18. (computer next generat* next (environment* or object*)):ti,ab

#19. (video game* or video next gaming or gaming next console* or interactive next game or interactive next gaming or Nintendo next Wii or gaming next program*):ti,ab

#20. (haptics or haptic next device*):ti,ab

#21. (simulat* near/3 (environment* or object* or event* or events or driving or drive* or car or tunnel or vehicle)):ti,ab

#22. (user next computer next interface):ti,ab

#23. #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22

#24. #9 and #23

Appendix 2. MEDLINE search strategy

We used the following search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid) and adapted it to search the other databases.

1. cerebrovascular disorders/ or exp basal ganglia cerebrovascular disease/ or exp brain ischemia/ or exp carotid artery diseases/ or exp intracranial arterial diseases/ or exp intracranial arteriovenous malformations/ or exp "intracranial embolism and thrombosis"/ or exp intracranial hemorrhages/ or stroke/ or exp brain infarction/

2. brain injuries/ or brain injury, chronic/

3. (stroke$ or cva or poststroke or post‐stroke or cerebrovasc$ or cerebral vascular).tw.

4. ((cerebral or cerebellar or brain$ or vertebrobasilar) adj5 (infarct$ or isch?emi$ or thrombo$ or emboli$ or apoplexy)).tw.

5. ((cerebral or brain or subarachnoid) adj5 (haemorrhage or hemorrhage or haematoma or hematoma or bleed$)).tw.

6. exp hemiplegia/ or exp paresis/

7. (hempar$ or hemipleg$ or paresis or paretic or brain injur$).tw.

8. Gait Disorders, Neurologic/

9. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8

10. user‐computer interface/

11. computers/ or exp microcomputers/ or computer systems/ or software/

12. computer simulation/ or computer‐assisted instruction/ or therapy, computer‐assisted/

13. computer graphics/ or video games/ or *touch/

14. (virtual reality$ or virtual‐reality$ or VR).tw.

15. (virtual adj3 (environment$ or object$ or world$ or treatment$ or system$ or program$ or rehabilitation$ or therap$ or driving or drive$ or car or tunnel or vehicle)).tw.

16. (computer adj3 (simulat$ or graphic$ or game$ or interact$)).tw.

17. (computer adj1 assist$ adj1 (therap$ or treat$)).tw.

18. (computer adj1 generat$ adj1 (environment$ or object$)).tw.

19. (video game$ or video gaming or gaming console$ or interactive game or interactive gaming or Nintendo Wii or gaming program$).tw.

20. (haptics or haptic device$).tw.

21. (simulat$ adj3 (environment$ or object$ or event$1 or driving or drive$ or car or tunnel or vehicle)).tw.

22. (user adj1 computer adj1 interface).tw.

23. or/10‐22

24. Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/

25. random allocation/

26. Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic/

27. control groups/

28. clinical trials as topic/

29. double‐blind method/

30. single‐blind method/

31. Placebos/

32. placebo effect/

33. cross‐over studies/

34. Research Design/

35. randomized controlled trial.pt.

36. controlled clinical trial.pt.

37. clinical trial.pt.

38. (random$ or RCT or RCTs).tw.

39. (controlled adj5 (trial$ or stud$)).tw.

40. (clinical$ adj5 trial$).tw.

41. ((control or treatment or experiment$ or intervention) adj5 (group$ or subject$ or patient$)).tw.

42. (quasi‐random$ or quasi random$ or pseudo‐random$ or pseudo random$).tw.

43. ((control or experiment$ or conservative) adj5 (treatment or therapy or procedure or manage$)).tw.

44. ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.

45. (cross‐over or cross over or crossover).tw.

46. (placebo$ or sham).tw.

47. trial.ti.

48. (assign$ or allocat$).tw.

49. or/24‐48

50. 9 and 23 and 49

51. limit 50 to ed=20100301‐20170401

Appendix 3. Embase search strategy

1. cerebrovascular disease/ or exp basal ganglion hemorrhage/ or exp brain hematoma/ or exp brain hemorrhage/ or exp brain infarction/ or exp brain ischemia/ or exp carotid artery disease/ or cerebral artery disease/ or exp cerebrovascular accident/ or exp cerebrovascular malformation/ or exp intracranial aneurysm/ or exp occlusive cerebrovascular disease/ or stroke/ or stroke unit/ or stroke patient/

2. brain injury/ or acquired brain injury/

3. (stroke$ or cva or poststroke or post‐stroke or cerebrovasc$ or cerebral vascular).tw.

4. ((cerebral or cerebellar or brain$ or vertebrobasilar) adj5 (infarct$ or isch?emi$ or thrombo$ or emboli$ or apoplexy)).tw.

5. ((cerebral or brain or subarachnoid) adj5 (haemorrhage or hemorrhage or haematoma or hematoma or bleed$)).tw.

6. hemiparesis/ or hemiplegia/ or paresis/

7. (hempar$ or hemipleg$ or paresis or paretic or brain injur$).tw.

8. exp neurologic gait disorder/

9. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8

10. virtual reality/ or computer interface/ or exp computer/ or computer program/ or computer simulation/ or computer assisted therapy/ or computer graphics/ or *touch/

11. (virtual reality$ or virtual‐reality$ or VR).tw.

12. (virtual adj3 (environment$ or object$ or world$ or treatment$ or system$ or program$ or rehabilitation$ or therap$ or driving or drive$ or car or tunnel or vehicle)).tw.

13. (computer adj3 (simulat$ or graphic$ or game$ or interact$)).tw.

14. (computer adj1 assist$ adj1 (therap$ or treat$)).tw.

15. (computer adj1 generat$ adj1 (environment$ or object$)).tw.

16. (video game$ or video gaming or gaming console$ or interactive game or interactive gaming or Nintendo Wii or gaming program$).tw.

17. (haptics or haptic device$).tw.

18. (simulat$ adj3 (environment$ or object$ or event$1 or driving or drive$ or car or tunnel or vehicle)).tw.

19. (user adj1 computer adj1 interface).tw.

20. or/10‐19

21. Randomized Controlled Trial/

22. Randomization/

23. Controlled Study/

24. control group/

25. clinical trial/

26. Crossover Procedure/

27. Double Blind Procedure/

28. Single Blind Procedure/ or triple blind procedure/

29. placebo/

30. "types of study"/

31. (random$ or RCT or RCTs).tw.

32. (controlled adj5 (trial$ or stud$)).tw.

33. (clinical$ adj5 trial$).tw.

34. ((control or treatment or experiment$ or intervention) adj5 (group$ or subject$ or patient$)).tw.

35. (quasi‐random$ or quasi random$ or pseudo‐random$ or pseudo random$).tw.

36. ((control or experiment$ or conservative) adj5 (treatment or therapy or procedure or manage$)).tw.

37. ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask$)).tw.

38. (cross‐over or cross over or crossover).tw.

39. placebo$ or sham).tw.

40. trial.ti.

41. (assign$ or allocat$).tw.

42. or/21‐41

43. 9 and 20 and 42

44. limit 43 to DD=20131026‐20170401

Appendix 4. AMED search strategy

1. cerebrovascular disorders/ or cerebral hemorrhage/ or cerebral infarction/ or cerebral ischemia/ or cerebrovascular accident/ or stroke/ or brain injuries/

2. (stroke$ or cva or poststroke or post‐stroke or cerebrovasc$ or cerebral vascular).tw.

3. ((cerebral or cerebellar or brain$ or vertebrobasilar) adj5 (infarct$ or isch?emi$ or thrombo$ or emboli$ or apoplexy)).tw.

4. ((cerebral or brain or subarachnoid) adj5 (haemorrhage or hemorrhage or haematoma or hematoma or bleed$)).tw.

5. hemiplegia/ or gait disorders/

6. (hempar$ or hemipleg$ or paresis or paretic or brain injur$).tw.

7. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6

8. virtual reality/ or computer systems/ or exp computers/ or internet/ or software/ or computer graphics/ or computer assisted instruction/ or computer simulation/ or therapy computer assisted/ or "play and playthings"/

9. (virtual reality$ or virtual‐reality$ or VR).tw.

10. (virtual adj3 (environment$ or object$ or world$ or treatment$ or system$ or program$ or rehabilitation$ or therap$ or driving or drive$ or car or tunnel or vehicle)).tw.

11. (computer adj3 (simulat$ or graphic$ or game$ or interact$)).tw.

12. (computer adj1 assist$ adj1 (therap$ or treat$)).tw.

13. (computer adj1 generat$ adj1 (environment$ or object$)).tw.

14. (video game$ or video gaming or gaming console$ or interactive game or interactive gaming or Nintendo Wii or gaming program$).tw.

15. (haptics or haptic device$).tw.

16. (simulat$ adj3 (environment$ or object$ or event$1 or driving or drive$ or car or tunnel or vehicle)).tw.

17. (user adj1 computer adj1 interface).tw.

18. or/8‐17

19. 7 and 18

20. limit 19 to UP=201310‐201704

Appendix 5. CINAHL search strategy

S55 S54 and EM 201310‐

S54 ‐S34 AND S53

S53 ‐S35 OR S36 OR S37 OR S38 OR S39 OR S40 OR S41 OR S42 OR S43 OR S46 OR S47 OR S50 OR S51 OR S52

S52 ‐TI trial OR ( TI (RCT or RCTs) OR AB (RCT or RCTs) )

S51 ‐TI ( counterbalance* or multiple baseline* or ABAB design ) or AB ( counterbalance* or multiple baseline* or ABAB design )

S50 ‐S48 and S49

S49 ‐TI trial* or AB trial*

S48 ‐TI ( clin* or intervention* or compar* or experiment* or preventive or therapeutic ) or AB ( clin* or intervention* or compar* or experiment* or preventive or therapeutic )

S47 ‐TI ( crossover or cross‐over or placebo* or control* or factorial or sham ) or AB ( crossover or cross‐over or placebo* or control* or factorial or sham )

S46 ‐S44 and S45

S45 ‐TI ( blind* or mask*) or AB ( blind* or mask* )

S44 ‐TI ( singl* or doubl* or tripl* or trebl* ) or AB ( singl* or doubl* or tripl* or trebl* )

S43 ‐TI random* or AB random*

S42 ‐(MH "Community Trials") or (MH "Experimental Studies") or (MH "One‐Shot Case Study") or (MH "Pretest‐Posttest Design+") or (MH "Solomon Four‐Group Design") or (MH "Static Group Comparison") or (MH "Study Design")

S41 ‐(MH "Clinical Research") or (MH "Clinical Nursing Research")

S40 ‐(MH "Placebo Effect") or (MH "Placebos") or (MH "Meta Analysis")

S39 ‐(MH "Factorial Design") or (MH "Quasi‐Experimental Studies") or (MH "Nonrandomized Trials")

S38 ‐(MH "Control (Research)") or (MH "Control Group")

S37 ‐(MH "Crossover Design") or (MH "Clinical Trials+") or (MH "Comparative Studies")

S36 ‐(MH "Random Assignment") or (MH "Random Sample+")

S35 ‐PT randomized controlled trial or clinical trial

S34 ‐S15 AND S33

S33 ‐S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S19 OR S20 OR S21 OR S22 OR S23 OR S24 OR S25 OR S26 OR S27 OR S28 OR S29 OR S30 OR S31 OR S32

S32 ‐TI (user N2 computer N2 interface) or AB (user N2 computer N2 interface)

S31 ‐TI (simulat* N3 (environment* or object* or event or events or driving or drive* or car or tunnel or vehicle)) or AB (simulat* N3 (environment* or object* or event or events or driving or drive* or car or tunnel or vehicle))

S30 ‐TI (haptics or haptic device*) or AB (haptics or haptic device*)

S29 ‐TI (video game* or video gaming or gaming console* or interactive game or interactive gaming or Nintendo Wii or gaming program*) or AB (video game* or video gaming or gaming console* or interactive game or interactive gaming or Nintendo Wii or gaming program*)

S28 ‐TI (computer generat* N3 (environment* or object*)) or AB (computer generat* N3 (environment* or object*))

S27 ‐TI (computer assist* N3 (therap* or treat*)) or AB (computer assist* N3 (therap* or treat*))

S26 ‐TI (computer N3 (simulat* or graphic* or game* or interact*)) or AB (computer N3 (simulat* or graphic* or game* or interact*))

S25 ‐TI (virtual N3 (environment* or object* or world* or treatment* or system* or program* or rehabilitation* or therap* or driving or drive* or car or tunnel or vehicle)) or AB (virtual N3 (environment* or object* or world* or treatment* or system* or program* or rehabilitation* or therap* or driving or drive* or car or tunnel or vehicle))

S24 ‐TI ( virtual reality* or virtual‐reality* or VR ) OR AB ( virtual reality* or virtual‐reality* or VR )

S23 ‐(MM "Touch")

S22 ‐(MH "Video Games")

S21 ‐(MH "Computer Graphics")

S20 ‐(MH "Microcomputers+")

S19 ‐(MH "Computer Systems") OR (MH "User‐Computer Interface+") OR (MH "Software+")

S18 ‐(MH "Computer Assisted Instruction")

S17 ‐(MH "Therapy, Computer Assisted")

S16 ‐(MH "Computer Simulation") OR (MH "Virtual Reality") OR (MH "Computing Methodologies") OR (MH "Computers and Computerization")

S15 ‐S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S6 OR S9 OR S10 OR S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14

S14 ‐TI brain injur* OR AB brain inju*

S13 ‐(MH "Brain Injuries")

S12 ‐(MH "Gait Disorders, Neurologic+")

S11 ‐TI ( hemipleg* or hemipar* or paresis or paretic ) or AB ( hemipleg* or hemipar* or paresis or paretic )

S10 ‐(MH "Hemiplegia")

S9 ‐S7 and S8

S8 ‐TI ( haemorrhage* or hemorrhage* or haematoma* or hematoma* or bleed* ) or AB ( haemorrhage* or hemorrhage* or haematoma* or hematoma* or bleed* )

S7 ‐TI ( brain* or cerebr* or cerebell* or intracerebral or intracranial or subarachnoid ) or AB ( brain* or cerebr* or cerebell* or intracerebral or intracranial or subarachnoid )

S6 ‐S4 and S5

S5 ‐TI ( ischemi* or ischaemi* or infarct* or thrombo* or emboli* or occlus* ) or AB ( ischemi* or ischaemi* or infarct* or thrombo* or emboli* or occlus* )

S4 ‐TI ( brain* or cerebr* or cerebell* or intracran* or intracerebral ) or AB ( brain* or cerebr* or cerebell* or intracran* or intracerebral )

S3 ‐TI ( stroke or poststroke or post‐stroke or cerebrovasc* or brain vasc* or cerebral vasc or cva or apoplex or SAH ) or AB ( stroke or poststroke or post‐stroke or cerebrovasc* or brain vasc* or cerebral vasc or cva or apoplex or SAH )

S2 ‐(MH "Stroke Patients") OR (MH "Stroke Units")

S1 ‐(MH "Cerebrovascular Disorders") OR (MH "Basal Ganglia Cerebrovascular Disease+") OR (MH "Carotid Artery Diseases+") OR (MH "Cerebral Ischemia+") OR (MH "Cerebral Vasospasm") OR (MH "Intracranial Arterial Diseases+") OR (MH "Intracranial Embolism and Thrombosis") OR (MH "Intracranial Hemorrhage+") OR (MH "Stroke") OR (MH "Vertebral Artery Dissections")

Appendix 6. PsycINFO search strategy

1. cerebrovascular disorders/ or cerebral hemorrhage/ or exp cerebral ischemia/ or cerebrovascular accidents/ or subarachnoid hemorrhage/ or brain damage/

2. (stroke$ or cva or poststroke or post‐stroke or cerebrovasc$ or cerebral vascular).tw.

3. ((cerebral or cerebellar or brain$ or vertebrobasilar) adj5 (infarct$ or isch?emi$ or thrombo$ or emboli$ or apoplexy)).tw.

4. ((cerebral or brain or subarachnoid) adj5 (haemorrhage or hemorrhage or haematoma or hematoma or bleed$)).tw.

5. hemiparesis/ or hemiplegia/

6. (hempar$ or hemipleg$ or paresis or paretic or brain injur$).tw.

7. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6

8. virtual reality/ or role playing games/ or exp computer assisted instruction/ or computer assisted therapy/ or computer simulation/ or computer games/ or simulation games/ or computers/ or microcomputers/ or internet/ or computer applications/ or computer software/

9. (virtual reality$ or virtual‐reality$ or VR).tw.

10. (virtual adj3 (environment$ or object$ or world$ or treatment$ or system$ or program$ or rehabilitation$ or therap$ or driving or drive$ or car or tunnel or vehicle)).tw.

11. (computer adj3 (simulat$ or graphic$ or game$ or interact$)).tw.

12. (computer adj1 assist$ adj1 (therap$ or treat$)).tw.

13. (computer adj1 generat$ adj1 (environment$ or object$)).tw.

14. (video game$ or video gaming or gaming console$ or interactive game or interactive gaming or Nintendo Wii or gaming program$).tw.

15. (haptics or haptic device$).tw.

16. (simulat$ adj3 (environment$ or object$ or event$1 or driving or drive$ or car or tunnel or vehicle)).tw.

17. (user adj1 computer adj1 interface).tw.

18. or/8‐17

19. 7 and 18

20. limit 19 to yr=2013‐Current

Appendix 7. Cochrane 'Risk of bias' table

The Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias (Higgins 2011a)

Domain

Description

Review authors’ judgement

Sequence generation

Describe the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

 

□ Yes □ No □ Unsure

 

Allocation concealment

Describe the method used to conceal the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to determine whether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, or during, enrolment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was allocation adequately concealed?

□ Yes □ No □ Unsure 

 

Blinding of outcome assessors

Assessments should be made for each main outcome (or class of outcomes)

Describe all measures used, if any, to blind personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective

 

 

Was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study?

 

 

Outcome assessors   

□ Yes □ No □ Unsure

 

Incomplete outcome data

Assessments should be made for each main outcome (or class of outcomes).

Describe the completeness of outcome data for each main outcome, including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. State whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers in each intervention group (compared with total randomised participants), reasons for attrition/exclusions where reported, and any re‐inclusions in analyses performed by the review authors

Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?

□ Yes □ No □ Unsure

Selective outcome reporting

State how the possibility of selective outcome reporting was examined by the review authors, and what was found

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

□ Yes □ No □ Unsure

Study flow diagram
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 1 Upper limb function post intervention (composite measure).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 1 Upper limb function post intervention (composite measure).

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 2 Upper limb function post intervention (Fugl Meyer).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 2 Upper limb function post intervention (Fugl Meyer).

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 3 Hand function post intervention (grip strength).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 3 Hand function post intervention (grip strength).

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 4 Upper limb function post intervention: amount of use (subjective).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 4 Upper limb function post intervention: amount of use (subjective).

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 5 Upper limb function at short term follow‐up (up to 3 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 5 Upper limb function at short term follow‐up (up to 3 months).

Comparison 2 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses, Outcome 1 Dose of intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses, Outcome 1 Dose of intervention.

Comparison 2 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses, Outcome 2 Time since onset of stroke.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses, Outcome 2 Time since onset of stroke.

Comparison 2 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses, Outcome 3 Specialised or gaming.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses, Outcome 3 Specialised or gaming.

Comparison 2 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses, Outcome 4 Severity of impairment.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses, Outcome 4 Severity of impairment.

Comparison 3 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 1 Upper limb function (composite measure).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention, Outcome 1 Upper limb function (composite measure).

Comparison 4 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention: subgroup analyses, Outcome 1 Dose of intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention: subgroup analyses, Outcome 1 Dose of intervention.

Comparison 4 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention: subgroup analyses, Outcome 2 Time since onset of stroke.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention: subgroup analyses, Outcome 2 Time since onset of stroke.

Comparison 4 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention: subgroup analyses, Outcome 3 Specialised or gaming.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention: subgroup analyses, Outcome 3 Specialised or gaming.

Comparison 5 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 1 Gait speed.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 1 Gait speed.

Comparison 5 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 2 Timed Up and Go Test.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 2 Timed Up and Go Test.

Comparison 5 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 3 Balance.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 3 Balance.

Comparison 6 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention: subgroup analyses, Outcome 1 Dose of intervention: effect on gait speed.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention: subgroup analyses, Outcome 1 Dose of intervention: effect on gait speed.

Comparison 7 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 1 Gait speed.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 1 Gait speed.

Comparison 7 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 2 Functional mobility (Timed Up and Go).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 2 Functional mobility (Timed Up and Go).

Comparison 7 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 3 Balance.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on lower limb activity post intervention, Outcome 3 Balance.

Comparison 8 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on global motor function post intervention, Outcome 1 Global motor function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on global motor function post intervention, Outcome 1 Global motor function.

Comparison 9 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on activity limitation, Outcome 1 ADL outcome.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on activity limitation, Outcome 1 ADL outcome.

Comparison 10 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on activity limitation, Outcome 1 ADL outcome.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on activity limitation, Outcome 1 ADL outcome.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Virtual reality compared to conventional therapy for stroke rehabilitation

Virtual reality compared to conventional therapy for stroke rehabilitation

Patient or population: people receiving stroke rehabilitation
Settings: hospital, clinic or home
Intervention: virtual reality

Comparison: conventional therapy

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Virtual reality

Upper limb function

Same dose of conventional therapy

The mean upper limb function in the intervention groups was
0.07 standard deviations higher
(‐0.05 to 0.20 higher)

1038
(22 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,2,3

No statistically significant difference between groups

Quality of life

Same dose of conventional therapy

No significant benefit found on total score of the SF‐36

300

(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

low1,2,4

Studies could not be pooled. None of the 3 studies found significant differences between groups in total score. 2 studies reported significant differences in domains of the SF36

Gait speed

Same dose of conventional therapy

The mean gait speed in the intervention groups was
0.09 metres per second faster
(0.04 lower to 0.22 higher)

139
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3,4

No statistically significant difference between groups

ADL outcome

Same dose of conventional therapy

The mean ADL outcome in the intervention groups was
0.25 standard deviations higher
(0.06 to 0.43 higher)

466
(10 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Small effect in favour of those receiving virtual reality intervention

ADL: activities of daily living; CI: confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect

Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different

Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect

Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Risk of bias was unclear in a number of studies.
2Downgraded by 1 due to inconsistency in findings across studies.
3Surrogate outcome.
4Small total population size (< 400).

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Virtual reality compared to conventional therapy for stroke rehabilitation
Summary of findings 2. Virtual reality plus usual care compared with usual care alone

Virtual reality intervention compared with usual care (thus provided as additional therapy) for stroke rehabilitation

Patient or population: people receiving stroke rehabilitation

Settings: hospital, clinic or home

Intervention: virtual reality provided in addition to usual care

Comparison: usual care

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Virtual reality (provided in addition to usual care)

Upper limb function

Usual care

The SMD in the intervention groups was 0.49 standard deviations higher (0.21 to 0.77)

210

(10 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3,4

Moderate effect in favour of providing virtual reality intervention in addition to usual care

Quality of life ‐ not measured in any of the studies

Not measured in the studies

Gait speed

Usual care

The mean difference in the intervention groups was
0.08 metres per second faster (‐0.05 to 0.21)

57

(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3,4

No statistically significant difference between groups

Global motor function

Usual care

The SMD in the intervention groups was
0.01 standard deviations higher (‐0.60 to 0.61)

43

(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3,4

No statistically significant difference between groups

ADL outcome

Usual care

The SMD in the intervention groups was 0.44 standard deviations higher (0.11 to 0.76)

153

(8 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,3,4

Small to moderate effect in favour of virtual reality intervention

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

ADL: activities of daily living; CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RR: risk ratio; SMD: standardised mean difference

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect

Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different

Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect

Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Risk of bias was unclear in a number of studies.
2Downgraded by 1 due to inconsistency in findings across studies.
3Surrogate outcome.
4Small total population size (< 400).

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 2. Virtual reality plus usual care compared with usual care alone
Table 1. Outcome measures used from the included trials

Author and year

Upper limb function

Hand function

Lower limb activity

Balance and postural control

Global motor function

Cognitive function

Activity limitation

Participation restriction and QOL

Adie 2017

Action Research Arm Test,

Motor Activity Log Arm Function Test

Modified Rankin Scale

Stroke Impact Scale,

EQ5D, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure

Akinwuntan 2005

Useful Field of View test

On‐road driving test score, decision of fitness to drive

Barcala 2013

Timed Up and Go

Berg Balance Scale, centre of pressure data, body symmetry data

Functional Independence Measure

Bower 2015

6‐minute walk test, step test

Functional reach

Motor Assessment Scale

Functional Independence Measure (transfers, mobility, stairs)

Byl 2013

Fugl Meyer UE Scale, Motor Proficiency Speed (abbreviated Wolf Motor Function test + Digital reaction time test)

Motor skill performance (Box and Block and tapper test)

Functional Independence (CAFE40)

Cho 2012

Wolf Motor Function Test

Motor Free Visual Perception Test

Chow 2013

10‐m walk test

Berg Balance Scale

Modified Barthel Index

Crosbie 2008

Action Research Arm Test, Upper Limb Motricity Index

da Silva Ribeiro 2015

Fugl Meyer

Dynamic Gait Index

SF36

da Silva Cameirao 2011

Fugl Meyer UE, Chedoke Arm and Hand Inventory

Barthel Index

Fan 2014

Jebsen Taylor Hand Function Test

Stroke Impact Scale

Galvao 2015

Fugl Meyer, Motor Activity Log

Givon 2016

Action Research Arm Test

Grip strength

10‐m walk test

Han 2013

Berg Balance Scale

Modified Barthel Index

Housman 2009

Fugl Meyer UE Scale, Rancho Functional Test,

Motor Activity Log (amount of use and quality of movement)

Grip strength (kg)

Hung 2014

Timed Up and Go Test

Forward Reach Test

Falls Efficacy Scale International

Jaffe 2004

6‐m walk test, Obstacle Test, 6‐minute walk test

Customised balance test designed by the researchers

Jang 2005

Fugl Meyer UE Scale, Manual Function Test, Motor Activity Log (amount of use and quality of movement)

Box and Block Test

Jannink 2008

Jung 2012

Timed Up and Go

Kang 2009

Mini Mental State Examination

Modified Barthel Index

Kim 2009

10‐m walk test, GAIT‐RITE gait analysis system

Berg Balance Scale, balance performance monitor

Modified Motor Assessment Scale

Kim 2011a

Motricity Index

Motricity Index

Computerised neuropsychological test and Tower of London test

Korean Modified Barthel Index

Kim 2011b

Measures of spatial neglect (star cancellation, line bisection test, Catherine Bergego Scale)

Korean Modified Barthel Index

Kim 2012a

Postural assessment scale

Modified Motor Assessment Scale

Functional Independence Measure

Kiper 2011

Fugl Meyer UE

Functional Independence Measure

Klamroth‐Marganska 2014

Fugl Meyer UE, Wolf Motor Function Test, Motor Activity Log (quality of movement)

Stroke Impact Scale, Goal attainment scale

Ko 2015

Timed Up and Go Test

Berg Balance Scale

Kong 2014

Fugl Meyer, Action Research Arm Test

Functional Independence Measure

Stroke Impact Scale

Kwon 2012

Fugl Meyer UE, Manual Function Test

Korean Modified Barthel Index

Lam 2006

Lee 2013

Functional Reach Test

Lee 2014a

Timed Up and Go Test

Berg Balance Scale

Lee 2015a

Functional Reach Test

Lee 2015b

Levin 2012

Fugl Meyer UE Scale, Reach Performance Scale for Stroke, Box and Blocks Test, Wolf Motor Function Test, Motor Activity Log

Linder 2015

Stroke Impact Scale

Llorens 2015

Tinetti Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, 10‐m walk test

Berg Balance Scale, Brunel Balance Assessment

Low 2012

Fugl Meyer UE Scale, Action Research Arm Test

Gait speed

Berg Balance Scale

Functional Independence Measure

Manlapaz 2010

Fugl Meyer UE Scale

Motor Assessment Scale

Mao 2015

Gait analysis (gaitlab assessment)

Matsuo 2013

Fugl Meyer UE, Wolf Motor Function Test, Box and Block Test, Motor Activity Log

Mazer 2005

DriveAble Testing Ltd Driver Evaluation

McNulty 2015

Wolf Motor Function Test timed tasks and strength subtests, Motor Activity Log QOM scale, Fugl Meyer, Box and Block Test

Mirelman 2008

Gait speed over 7‐metre walkway, 6‐minute walk test, Patient Activity Monitor

Morone 2014

10‐m walk test

Berg Balance Scale

Barthel Index

Functional Ambulation Category

Nara 2015

Static balance ability

Piron 2007

Fugl Meyer UE Scale

Functional Independence Measure

Piron 2009

Fugl Meyer UE Scale, Abilhand Scale

Piron 2010

Fugl Meyer UE Scale

Functional Independence Measure

Prange 2015

Fugl Meyer UE, Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Sclae

Rajaratnam 2013

Timed Up and Go

Berg Balance Scale, functional reach, centre of pressure

Reinkensmeyer 2012

Fugl Meyer UE, Ranchos Functional Test for UE, Motor Activity Log, Box and Blocks Test

Grip strength

Saposnik 2010

Abbreviated Wolf Motor Function Test

Box and Block Test, grip strength (kg)

Stroke Impact Scale (hand function, composite function, perception of recovery)

Saposnik 2016

Abbreviated Wolf Motor Function Test, Box and Block Test

Grip strength

Functional Independence Measure, Barthel Index, Modified Rankin Scale

Stroke Impact Scale

Shin 2014

Fugl Meyer UE

Modified Barthel Index

Shin 2015

Fugl Meyer UE

SF36

Sin 2013

Fugl Meyer UE, Box and Block Test

Song 2015

Timed Up and Go Test, 10‐minute walk test

Balance (Biofeedback system)

Standen 2011

Wolf Motor Function Test, Motor Activity Log, Nine Hole Peg Test

Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale

Subramanian 2013

Fugl Meyer UE, Wolf Motor Function test, Reaching performance scale for stroke, Motor Activity Log

Sucar 2009

Fugl Meyer UE Scale, Upper Limb Motricity Index

Thielbar 2014

Action Research Arm Test, Jebsen Taylor Hand Function Test, Fugl Meyer UE

Grip strength

Ucar 2014

Timed walking speed test, Timed Up and Go

Mini Mental State Examination

Functional Ambulation Category

Xiang 2014

10‐m walking speed, Fugl Meyer (LE)

Brunel Balance Assessment

Yang 2008

Walking speed, Community Walk Test

Walking Ability Questionnaire, Activities Specific Balance Confidence Scale

Yang 2011

Gait analysis data

Balance analysis data

Yavuzer 2008

Brunnstrom Upper Extremity Stages

Brunnstrom Hand Stages

Functional Independence Measure self‐care section

Yin 2014

Fugl Meyer, Action Research Arm Test, Motor Activity Log

Functional Independence Measure

You 2005

Functional ambulation category

Modified Motor Assessment Scale

Zucconi 2012

Fugl Meyer UE, Reaching performance scale

Functional Independence Measure

fMRI: functional magnetic resonance imaging
QOL: quality of life
UE: upper extremity

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Outcome measures used from the included trials
Comparison 1. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Upper limb function post intervention (composite measure) Show forest plot

22

1038

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.05, 0.20]

2 Upper limb function post intervention (Fugl Meyer) Show forest plot

16

599

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.85 [1.06, 4.65]

3 Hand function post intervention (grip strength) Show forest plot

6

266

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.02 [‐0.27, 0.22]

4 Upper limb function post intervention: amount of use (subjective) Show forest plot

5

161

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.42, 0.21]

5 Upper limb function at short term follow‐up (up to 3 months) Show forest plot

9

366

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.10, 0.32]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on upper limb function post intervention
Comparison 2. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Dose of intervention Show forest plot

22

1038

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.05, 0.20]

1.1 Less than 15 hours of intervention

9

430

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.20, 0.18]

1.2 More than 15 hours of intervention

13

608

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [‐0.03, 0.29]

2 Time since onset of stroke Show forest plot

20

930

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.09, 0.17]

2.1 Less than 6 months

7

555

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.06 [‐0.23, 0.11]

2.2 More than 6 months

13

375

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.19 [‐0.02, 0.39]

3 Specialised or gaming Show forest plot

22

1038

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.05, 0.20]

3.1 Specialised

15

506

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [‐0.00, 0.35]

3.2 Gaming

7

532

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.02 [‐0.20, 0.15]

4 Severity of impairment Show forest plot

21

998

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.06, 0.19]

4.1 Mild to moderate impairment

13

678

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.06, 0.25]

4.2 Moderate to severe impairment

8

320

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.22, 0.23]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: upper limb function: subgroup analyses
Comparison 3. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Upper limb function (composite measure) Show forest plot

10

210

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.21, 0.77]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention
Comparison 4. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention: subgroup analyses

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Dose of intervention Show forest plot

10

210

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.21, 0.77]

1.1 Less than 15 hours of intervention

7

153

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.14, 0.80]

1.2 More than 15 hours of intervention

3

57

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.00, 1.07]

2 Time since onset of stroke Show forest plot

9

181

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.14, 0.74]

2.1 Less than 6 months

5

102

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.12, 0.67]

2.2 More than 6 months

4

79

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.19, 1.11]

3 Specialised or gaming Show forest plot

10

210

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.21, 0.77]

3.1 Specialised

7

139

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.06, 0.75]

3.2 Gaming

3

71

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.18, 1.15]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on upper limb function post intervention: subgroup analyses
Comparison 5. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Gait speed Show forest plot

6

139

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [‐0.04, 0.22]

2 Timed Up and Go Test Show forest plot

3

89

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.76 [‐4.67, 1.16]

3 Balance Show forest plot

3

72

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [‐0.09, 0.86]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention
Comparison 6. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention: subgroup analyses

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Dose of intervention: effect on gait speed Show forest plot

6

139

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [‐0.04, 0.22]

1.1 Less than 10 hours of intervention

2

40

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.22, 0.24]

1.2 More than 10 hours of intervention

4

99

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.03, 0.28]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 6. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on lower limb activity post intervention: subgroup analyses
Comparison 7. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on lower limb activity post intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Gait speed Show forest plot

3

57

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.05, 0.21]

2 Functional mobility (Timed Up and Go) Show forest plot

3

93

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.76 [‐8.91, ‐0.61]

3 Balance Show forest plot

7

173

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.28, 0.90]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 7. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on lower limb activity post intervention
Comparison 8. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on global motor function post intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Global motor function Show forest plot

3

43

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.60, 0.61]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 8. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on global motor function post intervention
Comparison 9. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on activity limitation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 ADL outcome Show forest plot

10

466

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.06, 0.43]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 9. Virtual reality versus conventional therapy: effect on activity limitation
Comparison 10. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on activity limitation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 ADL outcome Show forest plot

8

153

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.11, 0.76]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 10. Additional virtual reality intervention: effect on activity limitation