4.4 Article

Virtual reality therapy for upper limb rehabilitation in patients with stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Journal

BRAIN INJURY
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 456-465

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02699052.2020.1725126

Keywords

Stroke; stroke rehabilitation; virtual reality therapy; upper limb

Funding

  1. China National Key RD Program [2017YFC1308500/2017YFC1308502]
  2. China National Natural Science Foundation [71971066, 81471734, 81430010, 31627802]
  3. China National Ministry of Science and Technology [4-9/2018]
  4. China National Ministry of Education [18YJA630019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Stroke is a major cause of life-long disability in adults, associated with poor quality of life. Virtual reality (VR)-based therapy systems are known to be helpful in improving motor functions following stroke, but recent clinical findings have not been included in the previous publications of meta-analysis studies. Aims: This meta-analysis was based on the available literature to evaluate the therapeutic potential of VR as compared to dose-matched conventional therapies (CT) in patients with stroke. Methods: We retrieved relevant articles in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science published between 2010 and February 2019. Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials that compared VR with CT were included. Results: A total of 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. The analysis indicated that the VR group showed statistically significant improvement in the recovery of UL function (Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity [FM-UE]: n = 20 studies, Mean Difference [MD] = 3.84, P = .01), activity (Box and Block Test [BBT]: n = 13, MD = 3.82, P = .04), and participation (Motor Activity Log [MAL]: n = 6, MD = 0.8, P = .0001) versus the control group. Conclusion: VR appears to be a promising therapeutic technology for UL motor rehabilitation in patients with stroke.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available