Summary of findings for the main comparison. Virtual reality compared to conventional therapy for stroke rehabilitation.
| Virtual reality compared to conventional therapy for stroke rehabilitation | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people receiving stroke rehabilitation
Settings: hospital, clinic or home
Intervention: virtual reality Comparison: conventional therapy | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Virtual reality | |||||
| Upper limb function | Same dose of conventional therapy | The mean upper limb function in the intervention groups was 0.07 standard deviations higher (‐0.05 to 0.20 higher) | 1038 (22 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,3 | No statistically significant difference between groups | |
| Quality of life | Same dose of conventional therapy | No significant benefit found on total score of the SF‐36 | 300 (3 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,4 |
Studies could not be pooled. None of the 3 studies found significant differences between groups in total score. 2 studies reported significant differences in domains of the SF36 | |
| Gait speed | Same dose of conventional therapy | The mean gait speed in the intervention groups was 0.09 metres per second faster (0.04 lower to 0.22 higher) | 139 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3,4 | No statistically significant difference between groups | |
| ADL outcome | Same dose of conventional therapy | The mean ADL outcome in the intervention groups was 0.25 standard deviations higher (0.06 to 0.43 higher) | 466 (10 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | Small effect in favour of those receiving virtual reality intervention | |
| ADL: activities of daily living; CI: confidence interval | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1Risk of bias was unclear in a number of studies. 2Downgraded by 1 due to inconsistency in findings across studies. 3Surrogate outcome. 4Small total population size (< 400).