Table 1 Descriptive characteristics and findings of included studies in stroke subcategory
Sample | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome | Test | Results | Conclusion | User feedback / follow-up info | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[29] | Adomaviciene 2019 RCT | N=42 Subacute Mean age= 64.6 | VR Kinect + conventional 2 weeks 5 times/ week | Conventional with robot-assisted trainer “Armeo Spring” 2 weeks 5 times/ week | UE mobility Function* Psycho-emotional | FMA, MAS BBT, HTT ROM, FIM HAD | No between group difference in FIM, but p<0.05 in self-care in VR. UE function significant improvement p<0.05 in both groups VR p<0.05 in HAD | Both groups improved in function, UE mobility and cognitive abilities. | Great user satisfaction, improved psycho-emotional state in VR/ No follow-up |
[20] | Fishbein 2019 RCT | N=22 Chronic Mean age= 65.2 | VR dual task walking 4weeks 2 times/ week | Conventional treadmill single task walking 4weeks 2 times/ week | Gait Balance Function | 10MWT, TUG FRT, BBS ABC | VR p<0.01 in BBS, FRT, 10MWT, ABC | VR is effective in improvement of balance, gait and function. Advised combination with conventional training with multitasking | Follow-up 4 weeks – effect maintained |
[32] | Kiper 2018 RCT | N = 136 Chronic, subacute Mean age= 63.9 | VR + conventional 4 weeks 5 times/week | Conventional 4 weeks 5 times/week | UE mobility Function | FMA FIM NIHSS ESAS | VR + conventional p<0.05 in all outcomes | VR combined with conventional has greater effect on UE function | No follow-up |
[33] | Askin 2018 RCT | N=40 Chronic Mean age= 54.9 | VR Kinect + conventional 4 weeks 5 times/week | Conventional 4 weeks 5 times/week | UE mobility Function | FMA, MAS BBT, MI ROM | VR p<0.05 in all outcomes Between group difference VR p<0.05 in FMA, MI, ROM | VR as an effective addition to conventional therapy for UE function and ROM improvement | Good response to VR, great user satisfaction/ No follow-up |
[31] | Lee MM 2018 RCT | N= 30 Subacute Mean age= 61.6 | VR Wii + conventional 5 weeks 3 times/week | Conventional 5 weeks 3 times/week | UE function Balance | MFT FRT | Both groups p<0.05 in all outcomes. Between group difference p<0.05 in VR in balance, UE function | VR is effective for postural balance and UE function if combined with conventional | No follow-up |
[34] | Schuster-Ampf 2018 RCT | N = 54 Chronic Mean age = 61.2 | VR 4 weeks 4 times/week | Conventional 4 weeks 4 times/week | UE function Dexterity QoL ADL | BBT CAHAI SIS BI | Both groups p<0.05 in BBT, CAHAI, SIS No between group difference in all outcomes, except for SIS p<0.05 in VR | VR as an effective alternative to conventional therapy in UE function, ADL, QoL. Groups improved more in first 2 weeks. | Greater improvement and response to VR in less impaired / No follow-up |
[21] | Utkan-Karasu 2018 RCT | N=23 Chronic, subacute Mean age= 63.2 | VR Wii 4 weeks 5 times/week | Conventional 4 weeks 5 times/week | Balance Function | BBS, FRT FIM, TUG | Both groups p<0.05 in all outcomes Between group difference VR p<0.05 in BBS, FRT, FIM | VR is an effective additional intervention for improvement of function, balance, independence | Follow-up 4 weeks – effect maintained |
[22] | Lee HC 2017 RCT | N= 47 Chronic Mean age= 57.6 | VR Kinect + conventional 6 weeks 2 times/week | Conventional 6 weeks 2 times/week | Balance ADL QoL Satisfaction, feasibility | BBS, FRT, TUG BI, ABC SIS | Both groups p<0.05 in BBS, TUG No between group difference in other outcomes | VR combined with conventional is effective for balance training | Great user satisfaction in VR/ Follow-up 3 months – effect maintained |
[35] | Brunner 2017 RCT | N=112 Subacute Mean age= 62 | VR 4 weeks4 times/week | Conventional 4 weeks 4 times/week | UE mobility Function ADL | ARAT BBT FIM | Both groups p<0.01 in all outcomes No between group difference | VR as effective as conventional for UE function. Entertaining alternative to standard rehabilitation | Great user satisfaction in VR/ Follow-up 3 months – effect maintained |
[25] | Adie 2017 RCT | N=209 Subacute Mean age= 67.3 | VR Wii 6 weeks 7 times/week | Conventional 6 weeks 7 times/week | UE mobility Function QoL Cost-effect | ARAT MRS SIS EQ-5D-3L | Both groups p<0.05 in ARAT, EQ 5D 3L No between group difference | VR not superior than conventional, but exciting. Cost-effect - more expensive than home exercise. | Good acceptability of VR/ Follow-up 6 months – no between group difference, but improved health state and arm function |