Kim 2009.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Study took place in Korea 24 participants: 12 intervention, 12 control Inclusion criteria: ≥ 1 year post stroke with plateau in motor recovery after conventional rehabilitation and the ability to stand for 30 min and walk indoors independently (approximately 30 m) Exclusion criteria: severe visual or cognitive impairment or musculoskeletal disorders that could interfere with tests Mean (SD) age: intervention group 52 (10) years, control group 52 (7) years 54% men Timing post stroke: intervention group mean (SD) 26 (10) months, control group 24 (9) months |
|
| Interventions | VR intervention: IREX VR system using a video capture system to capture the participant's whole body movement. The participant was able to view their body movements in real time on a screen in front of them immersed in a virtual environment. Games included stepping up/down, shark bait (capturing stars while avoiding eels and sharks by weight shift) and snowboarding. Participants were challenged by increasing resistance (e.g. adding weights) or increasing the speed. Control intervention: conventional physiotherapy designed to facilitate standing balance function during walking. Included practice of weight shift, muscle strengthening, functional reach or picking up objects Sessions for VR group: 30 min, 4 times/week for 4 weeks (8 h) of VR plus conventional physiotherapy 40 min, 4 times/week for 4 weeks (approximately 10.5 h) (approximately 18.5 h total) Sessions for control group: 40 min, 4 times/week for 4 weeks (approximately 10.5 h total) |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes recorded at baseline and post intervention Lower limb function and activity outcomes: 10‐m walk test, GAIT‐RITE gait analysis system, Berg balance scale, Balance performance monitor Global motor function outcomes: modified Motor Assessment Scale |
|
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | The sequence was generated using a lottery system |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Using sealed, opaque envelopes |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blind |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Does not appear to have any missing data |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | No other outcomes were collected |