Llorens 2015.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Recruited from an outpatient rehabilitation unit in Spain 20 participants: 10 intervention, 10 control Inclusion criteria: people with stroke attending a rehabilitation program. Had hemiparesis and were aged 40+ years but ≤ 70 years. Had a stroke > 6 months ago and had absence of cognitive impairment (MMSE of ≥ 24/30). Able to follow instructions and able to maintain stride‐standing position for 30 s without assistance from another person Exclusion criteria: severe dementia or aphasia (Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test < 45), visual or hearing impairment restricting ability to interact with the intervention, hemispatial neglect and ataxia or cerebellar symptoms Mean (SD) age: intervention group 58.3 (11.6) years, control group 55.0 (11.6) years 45% men Stroke details: 65% ischaemic Timing post stroke: intervention group mean 407 (232) d, control group mean 587 (222) d |
|
| Interventions | Intervention: 30 min conventional training plus 30 min of virtual rehabilitation. The set‐up consisted of a computer, audiovisual output system and motion tracking system. The output system consisted of a video display and audio system. The participant was immersed in a 3D environment; their feet were represented by 2 shoes that mimicked their movement in the real world. The objective of the task was to reach the items with 1 foot while maintaining the other foot within the circle. Conducted by a physiotherapist Control intervention: 1 h of conventional physiotherapy including balance exercises, task‐specific reaching, stepping and walking under different conditions. Conducted by a physiotherapist Sessions were 60 min, 5 times/week for 4 weeks |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes assessed post intervention Berg Balance Scale Balance and gait subscales of the Tinetti Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment Brunel Balance Assessment 10 m walking test Adverse events reported |
|
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer‐generated sequence |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Concealed in envelopes. Not clear whether they were opaque or not |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blinded therapist |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Low withdrawals and analysis included only those contributing data |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No mention of protocol or trial registration |