PURPOSE: To identify, to map out and to appraise research examining GestureTek virtual reality (VR) use for physical and cognitive rehabilitation and to highlight areas for future research. METHOD: Scoping review methodology was used to systematically and comprehensively search the academic and grey literature for GestureTek-specific research. Consensus was achieved following two reviewers' independent inclusion screening, data extraction and appraisal. RESULTS: Forty-four studies evaluated the utility and efficacy of the IREX, GX, VMall and Meal Maker software for rehabilitation across a range of populations, with few adverse events reported. Stroke and cerebral palsy research dominated, while geriatrics was largely overlooked. Efficacy research provided support for balance, mobility, upper extremity, cognitive, fitness and daily living skills outcomes for specific populations with effect sizes ranging from 0.19 to 3.34. Nevertheless, few strong quality or high-level studies are available, and no clear guidelines on optimal treatment characteristics exist. Outcomes of primary interest were at ICF body function and activity levels; evaluation of transfer of training across ICF levels is needed. CONCLUSIONS: This literature provides preliminary evidence for the technology's efficacy for rehabilitation. Identified research gaps relate to study quality and design, treatment characteristics, populations and outcomes of interest, including transfer across ICF levels. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: There is limited high-level evidence to support the use of the GestureTek virtual reality system for rehabilitation. Moderate to strong quality evidence exists primarily for the stroke and cerebral palsy populations, and primarily for balance, mobility and upper extremity outcomes. A lack of consistent outcome measures in this body of literature has created "silos" of research that cannot be quantitatively combined using a meta-analytic strategy.
PURPOSE: To identify, to map out and to appraise research examining GestureTek virtual reality (VR) use for physical and cognitive rehabilitation and to highlight areas for future research. METHOD: Scoping review methodology was used to systematically and comprehensively search the academic and grey literature for GestureTek-specific research. Consensus was achieved following two reviewers' independent inclusion screening, data extraction and appraisal. RESULTS: Forty-four studies evaluated the utility and efficacy of the IREX, GX, VMall and Meal Maker software for rehabilitation across a range of populations, with few adverse events reported. Stroke and cerebral palsy research dominated, while geriatrics was largely overlooked. Efficacy research provided support for balance, mobility, upper extremity, cognitive, fitness and daily living skills outcomes for specific populations with effect sizes ranging from 0.19 to 3.34. Nevertheless, few strong quality or high-level studies are available, and no clear guidelines on optimal treatment characteristics exist. Outcomes of primary interest were at ICF body function and activity levels; evaluation of transfer of training across ICF levels is needed. CONCLUSIONS: This literature provides preliminary evidence for the technology's efficacy for rehabilitation. Identified research gaps relate to study quality and design, treatment characteristics, populations and outcomes of interest, including transfer across ICF levels. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: There is limited high-level evidence to support the use of the GestureTek virtual reality system for rehabilitation. Moderate to strong quality evidence exists primarily for the stroke and cerebral palsy populations, and primarily for balance, mobility and upper extremity outcomes. A lack of consistent outcome measures in this body of literature has created "silos" of research that cannot be quantitatively combined using a meta-analytic strategy.
Authors: Michael J Fu; Anna Curby; Ryan Suder; Benjamin Katholi; Jayme S Knutson Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Danielle Levac; Stephanie M N Glegg; Heidi Sveistrup; Heather Colquhoun; Patricia A Miller; Hillel Finestone; Vincent DePaul; Jocelyn E Harris; Diana Velikonja Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sandy K Tatla; Navid Shirzad; Keith R Lohse; Naznin Virji-Babul; Alison M Hoens; Liisa Holsti; Linda C Li; Kimberly J Miller; Melanie Y Lam; H F Machiel Van der Loos Journal: JMIR Serious Games Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 4.143
Authors: Miel A P Vugts; Margot C W Joosen; Alfonsus H M M van Bergen; Hubertus J M Vrijhoef Journal: JMIR Serious Games Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 4.143