Table A3.

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE): Evidence Profile: SRV vs. control on functional autonomy: ADL.

Evidence Profile: SRV vs. Control on Functional Capacity: ADL			Evidence Profile: SRV vs. Control on Functional Mobility
N° of studies: 8 (10 comparisons) Type of studies: RCT Intervention: Virtual Reality Systems on ADL Control: TPE, ADL, programs of health education or non-intervention N° of patients: 212			N° of studies: 22 (38 comparisons) Type of studies: RCT Intervention: Virtual Reality Systems Control: physical exercise, programs of health education or non-intervention N° of patients: 1097
GRADE Factor	Importance	Explanations	GRADE Factor	Importance	Explanations
Limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias)	Moderate ↓1 level	Downgrading for risk of bias was not considered because most information is from studies at moderate risk of bias Moderate risk of bias Rate down one level	Limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias)	Moderate ↓1 level	Downgrading for risk of bias was not considered because most information is from studies at moderate risk of bias. Moderate risk of bias Rate down one level
Inconsistency results	Serious ↓1 level	Downgrading for inconsistency was considered because I2 = 79%.	Inconsistency results	No serious inconsistency	Downgrading for inconsistency was not considered because I2 = 58%
Indirectness evidence	No serious indirectness	In none of the studies were there substantial differences between the population, intervention or outcomes measured in the studies and those established in the systematic review.	Indirectness evidence	No serious indirectness	In none of the studies were there substantial differences between the population, intervention or outcomes measured in the studies and those established in the systematic review.
Imprecision	Moderated ↓1 level	The OIS was calculated, the resulting OIS being 276 participants with MDS = 0.3. The number of patients included in the meta-analysis is 212, moderately lower to the OIS. Downgrading for imprecision was considered.	Imprecision	No serious imprecision	The OIS was calculated, the resulting OIS being 276 participants with MDS = 0.3. The number of patients included in the meta-analysis is 1097, far superior to OIS. Downgrading for imprecision was not considered.
Publication bias	Not serious	Downgrading for publication bias was not considered because the DOI plot shows no asymmetry with LFK = 0.36.	Publication bias	Serious ↓1 level	Downgrading for publication bias was considered because the DOI plot shows marked asymmetry with LFK = 3.3 (major asymmetry).
Magnitude of effect	Moderated ↓1 level	SMD = │0.31 │ Upgrading for large magnitude of effect was not considered.	Magnitude of effect	Not serious	SMD =│0.58│ Upgrading for large magnitude of effect was not considered.
Dose-response gradient		Not considered.	Dose–response gradient		Not considered.
No plausible confounders		Not considered because studies in this meta-analysis are not observational.	No plausible confounders		Not considered because studies in this meta-analysis are not observational.
Quality rating	Very low quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different (GRADE Working Group grades of evidence)		Quality rating	Moderate–low quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different (GRADE Working Group grades of evidence)

Abbreviations: ADL: Activities of Daily Living; LFK: LFK Index; MCID: Minimum Clinically Important Difference; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial; OIS: Optimal Information Size. VRS: Virtual Reality System.