| Literature DB >> 31614990 |
Abstract
This review aimed to systematically evaluate the rehabilitatitive effect of Virtual Reality Games (VRGs) for gross motor skills of children with cerebral palsy (CP), and to give scientific grounds for the formulation of rehabilitation therapy for these children. To this end, the literature in Chinese databases (CNKI and Wanfang Data) as well as the databases of other countries (Web of Science, PubMed, EBSCOhost, Informit, Scopus, Science Direct and ProQuest) from the establishment dates of these databases to June 3rd 2019 was retrieved in order to collect randomized controlled trials with regard to the intervention effect of VRGs and traditional therapy on gross motor skills of children with CP, and the literature was screened as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PEDro scale was then used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included literature, and the software Review Manager 5.3 was employed to analyze the combined effect size. As a result, 7 randomized controlled trials and 234 children with CP were included. Meta-analysis showed that VRGs could improve gross motor skills of children with CP. Combined effect size of gross motor skills SMD = 0.37 [95% CI = (0.06, 0.68), p = 0.02)]. In conclusion, the VRG intervention program can enhance gross motor skills of children with CP to some extent. In view of the limitations regarding methodologies and the quality and quantity of the literature in this research, more quality randomized controlled trials are needed so as to draw convincing conclusions of effect of VRG intervention on gross motor skill development of children with CP in future studies.Entities:
Keywords: cerebral palsy; gross motor skill; virtual reality games
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31614990 PMCID: PMC6843701 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16203885
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The flow chart of literature screening.
List of basic characteristics of the included documents.
| Researchers | Country: Language | Subjects | GMFCS Level (Number) | Characteristics of Subjects (Number; Genders; Ages) | Intervention Methods; Frequency of the Intervention Group; Total Time of the Intervention Group | Intervention Location | VRGs Platform | VRGs Category | Outcome Indicators | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental Group | Control Group | |||||||||
| Chen et al. [ | Taiwan; English | Spastic diplegia and spastic hemiplegia children with CP | Level 1: 10; Level 2: 3 | Level 1: 11; Level 2: 3 | 27; experimental group: 13; 9 male (8.7 ± 2.2) ; control group: 14; 9 (8.6 ± 2.2) | Warm-up exercise + sitting training + VRGs treatment; 20 min each time, 3 times a week for 12 weeks; 720 min | Rehabilitation Center | The Eloton SimCycle Virtual Cycling System (Eloton, Inc., NV, USA), | Virtual bicycle | (1) |
| Chiu et al. [ | Taiwan; English | Hemiplegic children with CP | level 1–3: 21 | level 1–3: 21 | 62; experimental group: 32;15 male; (9.4 ± 1.9) | Routine rehabilitation + VRGs; 40 min, 3 times a week for 6 weeks; 720 min | Family | Nintendo wii | Bowling; flying disc; Aerial movement | (2) |
| Alsaif and Alsenany [ | Saudi-Arabia; English | Spastic diplegia children with CP | Level 3: 20 | Level 3: 20 | 40; experimental group: 20; Control group: 20; Age: 6–10 (NSL) | VRGs; 20 min a day, 7 times a week for 12 weeks; 1680 min | Family | Nintendo wii-fit balance board game | Unspecified specific type | (3) |
| Ren et al. [ | China; Chinese | Spastic diplegia children with CP | Level 1: 8; Level 2: 11 | Level 1: 7; Level 2: 9 | 35; experimental group: 19; 11 male; (53.88 ± 13.58) ; control group: 16; 9 (56.53 ± 9.67) | Routine rehabilitation + VRGs; 40 min each time, 5 times a week for 12 weeks; 2400 min | Hospital | Q4 Situational Interactive Training System (produced by Aomai, model q4) | Unspecified specific type | (4) (5) |
| Rgen et al. [ | Turkey; English | Spastic hemiplegia children with CP | Level 2: 15 | Level 2; 15 | 30; experimental group: 15; 7 male; | Routine rehabilitation + VRGs ; 40 min each time, 2 times a week for 9 weeks; 720 min | Not clear | Nintendo wii-fit | Jogging plus, penguin slide, heading, ski jump, snowball fight, tilt city, perfect 10, and segway circuit play. | (4) (5) |
| Cho et al. [ | South Korea; English | Sputum children with CP | Level 1: 3; Level 2: 1; Level 3: 5 | Level 1: 3; Level 2: 2; Level 3: 4 | 18; experimental group: 9, (10.2 ± 3.); Control group: 9, (9.4 ± 3.8) (NSL) | VRGs; 30 min a day, 3 times a week for 8 weeks; 720 min | Outpatient department | Nintendo wii-fit | Virtual reality treadmill | (4) (5) |
| Zhao et al. [ | China; Chinese | Spastic quadriplegia, spastic diplegia and spastic hemiplegia children with CP | Level 1: 18; Level 2: 6 | Level 1: 17; Level 2: 7 | 48; experimental group: 24 ;11 male; (59.38 ± 11.29) months | Routine rehabilitation + VRGs; 40 min each time, 5 times a week for 5 weeks; 1000 min | Hospital | Microsoft Xbox kinect virtual reality platform | Dance music imitation | (6) |
| Pin and Butler [ | China (Hong Kong); English | Spastic diplegia children with CP | Level 3: 8; Level 4: 1 | Level 3: 8; Level 4: 1 | 18; experimental group: 9 people 5 male; (8.92 ± 2.25) Control group: 9 people (male 6 female 3); (9.59 ± 1.87) | Routine rehabilitation + VRGs; 20 min each time, 4 times a week for 6 weeks; 480 min | School | (TYROMOTION GmbH, Graz, Austria) | Unspecified specific type | (1) |
| Xv et al. [ | China; Chinese | Children with CP | Not clear | Not clear | 98; experimental group: 50; 22 male; (45.01 ± 8.25) months | tDCS + VRGs; 20 min each time, 5 times a week for 4 weeks; 400 min | Hospital | Limb a2 feedback system (Guangzhou) | Unspecified specific type | (6) |
Note: NSL: The male to female ratio is not mentioned; GMFCS: Gross Motor Function Classification System; VRGs: virtual reality games; (1) Gross Motor Function Measure-66; (2) hand dex with 9-hole peg test; (3) Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Hand flexibility, aiming and grasping, balance); (4) Gross Motor Function Measure-D; (5) Gross Motor Function Measure-E; (6) Gross Motor Function Measu.
Methodological Quality Assessment for Included Studies.
| Included Studies | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | 6/11 |
| Chiu et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 8/11 |
| Alsaif et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 6/11 |
| Ren et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 6/11 |
| Rgen et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 5/11 |
| Cho et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 6/11 |
| Zhao et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 6/11 |
| Pin et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | 7/11 |
| Xv et al. [ | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Unclear | Yes | No | 5/11 |
Note: a. eligibility criteria were specified; b. subjects were randomly allocated to groups; c. allocation was concealed; d. the groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important outcome indicators; e. there was blinding of all subjects; f. there was blinding of all therapists; g. there was blinding of all assessors; h. measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups; i. all subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome was analyzed by “intention to treat”; j. the results of between-group statistical comparisons were reported for at least one key outcome; k. the study provided both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome.
Figure 2Effects of VRGs on Gross Motor Skills of Children with CP.
Moderating Effects Analysis of VRGs Group’s Intervention Plan in Children with CP.
| Intervention Plan | Level | Data | SMD | 95%CI | I2 | Intergroup Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Intervention Time | ≥17 min; | 6 | 0.26 | −0.07, 0.60 | 0% | 0.77 |
| ≥40 min | 6 | 0.20 | −0.05, 0.46 | 0% | ||
| Intervention Frequency | ≥2 times per week; | 7 | 0.06 | −0.21, 0.34 | 0% | 0.15 |
| ≥5 times per week | 5 | 0.40 | 0.04, 0.75 | 0% | ||
| Intervention Cycle | ≥4 weeks; | 8 | 0.19 | −0.03, 0.41 | 0% | 0.64 |
| ≥12 weeks | 4 | 0.32 | −0.18, 0.81 | 0% | ||
| Overall Intervention Time | ≥400 min; | 8 | 0.09 | −0.14, 0.32 | 0% | 0.11 |
| ≥1000 min | 4 | 0.49 | 0.05, 0.94 | 0% |