Table 2 Descriptive characteristics and findings of included studies in Parkinson’s disease subcategory
Sample | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome | Test | Results | Conclusion | User feedback/ follow-up info | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[36] | Pazzaglia 2020 RCT | N=51 Mean age= 71 | VR (Nirvana) 6 weeks 3 times/week | Conventional 6 weeks 3 times/week | Balance UE function QoL Satisfaction | BBS, DGI DASH SF36 | VR p<0.05 in all outcomes Conventional only p<0.05 in DASH Between group difference in satisfaction, fatigue VR p<0.05 | VR more effective than conventional for improvement in function and QoL in safe and stimulating environment | Great user satisfaction in VR/ No follow-up |
[26] | Santos 2019 RCT | N=45 Mean age= 64.3 | 1.VR Wii 2.VR+ conventional 8 weeks 2 times/week | Conventional 8 weeks 2 times/week | Balance Gait Function* QoL | BBS DGI TUG PDQ39 | Both groups p<0.05 in BBS, TUG, DGI No between group difference | Combined VR+ conventional has largest effect in all variables. VR as an effective addition to rehabilitation | No follow-up |
[23] | Feng 2019 RCT | N= 28 Mean age= 67.2 | VR 12 weeks 5 times/week | Conventional 12 weeks 5 times/week | Balance Gait Function | BBS TUG, FGA UPDRS | Both groups BBS,TUG, FGA p<0.05 Between group p<0.05 (VR favor) | VR is promising intervention for balance, gait, mobility. Improved self-care ability | No follow-up |
[30] | Ferraz 2018 RCT | N=62 Mean age= 69 | VR Kinect 8 weeks 3 times/week | 1.Aerobic (bike) 2.Conventional (functional) 8 weeks 3 times/week | Physical capacity Gait Function QoL Depression | 6MWT SST 10MWT WHODAS PDQ39 GDS | All groups p<0.05 in 6MWT, SST, WHODAS VR p<0.05 in 10MWT, PDQ39 No between group difference | VR improves walking capacity in PD. All 3 interventions improved gait, functionality | No follow-up |
[24] | De Melo 2018 RCT | N=37 Mean age= 62.3 | VR Kinect 4 weeks 3 times/week | 1.Treadmill 2.Conventional 4 weeks 3 times/week | Gait Function Physical capacity | 6MWT Borg scale sp02 | VR p<0.05 in 6MWT, Borg No between group difference in VR and treadmill | VR improved walking speed, distance, temporal gait variables, less fatigue. Not proven as effective as treadmill for physical fitness. Combination suggested | VR perceived enjoyable, encouraging/ No follow-up |
[27] | Ribas 2017 RCPT | N=20 Mean age= 61 | VR Wii 12 weeks 2 times/week | Conventional 12 weeks 2 times/week | Balance Fatigue Function QoL | BBS FSS 6MWT PDQ39 | VR p<0.05 in BBS, FSS No between group difference in functional capacity | VR is effective in enhancing balance, reducing fatigue after 12 weeks | Follow-up 4 weeks with doing only ADL exercises - no long-term effect |
[28] | Gandolfi 2017 RCT | N=71 Mean age= 68.7 | VR Wii (at home) 7 weeks 3 times/week | Conventional (at clinic) 7 weeks 3 times/week | Balance ADL Gait Cost-effect Satisfaction | BBS, DGI ABC 10MWT | Both groups p<0.05 in DGI,ABC,10MWT Between group difference VR p<0.05 for BBS, conventional p<0.05 for DGI. | VR (with carer) is feasible alternative to in-clinic VR has lower treatment and equipment cost | Same level of satisfaction in both groups/ Follow-up 4 weeks – effective. |
[37] | Yang 2016 RCT | N= 23 Mean age= 74 | VR 6 weeks 2 times/week | Conventional 6 weeks 2 times/week | Balance Gait Function QoL | BBS, DGI TUG UPDRS PDQ39 | Both groups p<0.05 in all outcomes No between group difference in any outcome | VR as effective as conventional in balance, motor, gait, QoL. Interesting addition to home program. | Follow-up 2 weeks - no between group difference. |