Cargando…
What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes
BACKGROUND: Virtual-reality based rehabilitation (VR) shows potential as an engaging and effective way to improve upper-limb function and cognitive abilities following a stroke. However, an updated synthesis of the literature is needed to capture growth in recent research and address gaps in our und...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5870176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29587853 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0370-2 |
_version_ | 1783309423121268736 |
---|---|
author | Aminov, Anna Rogers, Jeffrey M. Middleton, Sandy Caeyenberghs, Karen Wilson, Peter H. |
author_facet | Aminov, Anna Rogers, Jeffrey M. Middleton, Sandy Caeyenberghs, Karen Wilson, Peter H. |
author_sort | Aminov, Anna |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Virtual-reality based rehabilitation (VR) shows potential as an engaging and effective way to improve upper-limb function and cognitive abilities following a stroke. However, an updated synthesis of the literature is needed to capture growth in recent research and address gaps in our understanding of factors that may optimize training parameters and treatment effects. METHODS: Published randomized controlled trials comparing VR to conventional therapy were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Treatment effects (Hedge’s g) were estimated using a random effects model, with motor and functional outcomes between different protocols compared at the Body Structure/Function, Activity, and Participation levels of the International Classification of Functioning. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified, including 971 participants (492 VR participants). VR produced small to medium overall effects (g = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.33–0.59, p < 0.01), above and beyond conventional therapies. Small to medium effects were observed on Body Structure/Function (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–0.55; p < 0.01) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.34–0.60, p < 0.01), while Participation outcomes failed to reach significance (g = 0.38; 95% CI: -0.29-1.04, p = 0.27). Superior benefits for Body Structure/Function (g = 0.56) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.62) were observed when examining outcomes only from purpose-designed VR systems. Preliminary results (k = 4) suggested small to medium effects for cognitive outcomes (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–0.55; p < 0.01). Moderator analysis found no advantage for higher doses of VR, massed practice training schedules, or greater time since injury. CONCLUSION: VR can effect significant gains on Body Structure/Function and Activity level outcomes, including improvements in cognitive function, for individuals who have sustained a stroke. The evidence supports the use of VR as an adjunct for stroke rehabilitation, with effectiveness evident for a variety of platforms, training parameters, and stages of recovery. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12984-018-0370-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5870176 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58701762018-03-29 What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes Aminov, Anna Rogers, Jeffrey M. Middleton, Sandy Caeyenberghs, Karen Wilson, Peter H. J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: Virtual-reality based rehabilitation (VR) shows potential as an engaging and effective way to improve upper-limb function and cognitive abilities following a stroke. However, an updated synthesis of the literature is needed to capture growth in recent research and address gaps in our understanding of factors that may optimize training parameters and treatment effects. METHODS: Published randomized controlled trials comparing VR to conventional therapy were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Treatment effects (Hedge’s g) were estimated using a random effects model, with motor and functional outcomes between different protocols compared at the Body Structure/Function, Activity, and Participation levels of the International Classification of Functioning. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified, including 971 participants (492 VR participants). VR produced small to medium overall effects (g = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.33–0.59, p < 0.01), above and beyond conventional therapies. Small to medium effects were observed on Body Structure/Function (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–0.55; p < 0.01) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.34–0.60, p < 0.01), while Participation outcomes failed to reach significance (g = 0.38; 95% CI: -0.29-1.04, p = 0.27). Superior benefits for Body Structure/Function (g = 0.56) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.62) were observed when examining outcomes only from purpose-designed VR systems. Preliminary results (k = 4) suggested small to medium effects for cognitive outcomes (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–0.55; p < 0.01). Moderator analysis found no advantage for higher doses of VR, massed practice training schedules, or greater time since injury. CONCLUSION: VR can effect significant gains on Body Structure/Function and Activity level outcomes, including improvements in cognitive function, for individuals who have sustained a stroke. The evidence supports the use of VR as an adjunct for stroke rehabilitation, with effectiveness evident for a variety of platforms, training parameters, and stages of recovery. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12984-018-0370-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5870176/ /pubmed/29587853 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0370-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Aminov, Anna Rogers, Jeffrey M. Middleton, Sandy Caeyenberghs, Karen Wilson, Peter H. What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes |
title | What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes |
title_full | What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes |
title_fullStr | What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes |
title_full_unstemmed | What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes |
title_short | What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes |
title_sort | what do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5870176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29587853 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0370-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aminovanna whatdorandomizedcontrolledtrialssayaboutvirtualrehabilitationinstrokeasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysisofupperlimbandcognitiveoutcomes AT rogersjeffreym whatdorandomizedcontrolledtrialssayaboutvirtualrehabilitationinstrokeasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysisofupperlimbandcognitiveoutcomes AT middletonsandy whatdorandomizedcontrolledtrialssayaboutvirtualrehabilitationinstrokeasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysisofupperlimbandcognitiveoutcomes AT caeyenberghskaren whatdorandomizedcontrolledtrialssayaboutvirtualrehabilitationinstrokeasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysisofupperlimbandcognitiveoutcomes AT wilsonpeterh whatdorandomizedcontrolledtrialssayaboutvirtualrehabilitationinstrokeasystematicliteraturereviewandmetaanalysisofupperlimbandcognitiveoutcomes |