Jerome Iruthayarajah1, Amanda McIntyre1, Andreea Cotoi1, Steven Macaluso1,2,3, Robert Teasell1,2,3. 1. a Parkwood Institute Research , Parkwood Institute , London , Canada. 2. b St. Joseph's Health Care , Parkwood Institute , London , Canada. 3. c Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry , University of Western Ontario , London , Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) is becoming a popular alternative to traditional upper and lower limb rehabilitation following a stroke. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of VR interventions for improving balance in a chronic stroke (≥6 months) population. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of Pubmed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Psycinfo, and Web of Science databases was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: English randomized controlled trials published up to September 2015 assessing balance with VR in chronic stroke participants. DATA EXTRACTION: Mean and standard deviations from outcome measures were extracted. Pooled standard mean differences ± standard error were calculated for the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and the Timed Up and Go test (TUG). RESULTS: In total, 20 studies were selected which assessed the Nintendo® Wii Fit balance board (n = 7), treadmill training and VR (n = 7), and postural training using VR (n = 6). Significant improvements were found for VR interventions evaluating the BBS (n = 12; MD = 2.94 ± 0.57; p < 0.001) and TUG (n = 13; MD = 2.49 ± 0.57; p < 0.001). Sub-analyses revealed postural VR interventions had a significant effect on BBS (n = 5) and TUG (n = 3) scores (BBS: MD = 3.82 ± 0.79; p < 0.001 and TUG: MD = 3.74 ± 0.97; p < 0.001). VR and treadmill training (n = 5) had a significant effect on TUG scores (MD = 2.15 ± 0.89, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Overall, VR interventions compared to conventional rehabilitation had significant improvements. The meta-analyses also suggest that the Nintendo® Wii Fit balance board may not be effective, although further confirmatory studies are necessary. Results should be interpreted with caution due to differences in therapy intensities and effect sizes within the included studies.
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) is becoming a popular alternative to traditional upper and lower limb rehabilitation following a stroke. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of VR interventions for improving balance in a chronic stroke (≥6 months) population. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of Pubmed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Psycinfo, and Web of Science databases was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: English randomized controlled trials published up to September 2015 assessing balance with VR in chronic strokeparticipants. DATA EXTRACTION: Mean and standard deviations from outcome measures were extracted. Pooled standard mean differences ± standard error were calculated for the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and the Timed Up and Go test (TUG). RESULTS: In total, 20 studies were selected which assessed the Nintendo® Wii Fit balance board (n = 7), treadmill training and VR (n = 7), and postural training using VR (n = 6). Significant improvements were found for VR interventions evaluating the BBS (n = 12; MD = 2.94 ± 0.57; p < 0.001) and TUG (n = 13; MD = 2.49 ± 0.57; p < 0.001). Sub-analyses revealed postural VR interventions had a significant effect on BBS (n = 5) and TUG (n = 3) scores (BBS: MD = 3.82 ± 0.79; p < 0.001 and TUG: MD = 3.74 ± 0.97; p < 0.001). VR and treadmill training (n = 5) had a significant effect on TUG scores (MD = 2.15 ± 0.89, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Overall, VR interventions compared to conventional rehabilitation had significant improvements. The meta-analyses also suggest that the Nintendo® Wii Fit balance board may not be effective, although further confirmatory studies are necessary. Results should be interpreted with caution due to differences in therapy intensities and effect sizes within the included studies.
Authors: Janita Pak Chun Chau; Suzanne Hoi Shan Lo; Alexander Yuk Lun Lau; Vivian Wing Yan Lee; Kai Chow Choi; Eddie Chi Fai Kwok; David R Thompson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Antonio Melillo; Andrea Chirico; Giuseppe De Pietro; Luigi Gallo; Giuseppe Caggianese; Daniela Barone; Michelino De Laurentiis; Antonio Giordano Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Sarah B Zandvliet; Carel Gm Meskers; Rinske Hm Nijland; Andreas Daffertshofer; Gert Kwakkel; Erwin Eh van Wegen Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Francesco Cerritelli; Marco Chiera; Marco Abbro; Valentino Megale; Jorge Esteves; Alberto Gallace; Andrea Manzotti Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Kathleen H Sienko; Rachael D Seidler; Wendy J Carender; Adam D Goodworth; Susan L Whitney; Robert J Peterka Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.003