Table 8.

Reported outcomes for articles in the category stroke rehabilitation

Article	Evaluation method	Outcome	Effect
[25]	Evaluation was performed before and immediately after the interventions. The evaluation methods included: modified Ashworth scale (MAS), manual muscle test (MMT), manual function test (MFT), Fugl-Meyer scale (FMS), and box-and-block test (BBT), all these tests to evaluate UL function. Also, Korean-modified Barthel index (K-MBI) was used	Within groups, VR, tDCS and VR-tDCS interventions presented significant improvement in the MMT, MFT, FMS and K-MBI. Between groups, the improvements in MFT and FMS for the VRtDCS intervention were significantly higher than in VR and tDCS interventions	Positive
[30]	Evaluation was performed before, during (the VR part) and after interventions. The corticospinal excitability was evaluated by measuring the changes in amplitudes of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the extensor carpi radialis muscle, elicited with single-pulse TMS	VR wrist exercise after tDCS had greater immediate and sustained post-exercise corticospinal facilitation effects than the other interventions. This result was observed in healthy volunteers and subacute stroke patients	Positive
[31]	Evaluation was performed before and immediately after the interventions. The evaluation methods included: FMS, Wolf motor function test (WMFT), MAS, grip strength, and the stroke specific quality of life scale (SSQOL)	VR-sham and VR-tDCS groups showed significant improvements in FMS, WMFT, grip strength and SSQOL. However, in contrast to what was expected, no differences between the groups were observed	Neutral
[29]	Evaluation was performed before, during (each week) and after the interventions. The evaluation methods were the FMS and WMFS	After 4 weeks, participants in the VR-sham and VR-TMS groups presented significant improvement in the FMS and WMFS. The improvement in the VR-TMS group was significantly higher than in the VR-sham group	Positive
[28]	Evaluation was performed before an after interventions. The evaluation methods included the BBT and finger tracking test (FTT). Also the interhemispheric inhibition was evaluated with changes in amplitude of MEPs	Significant motor improvements were observed in both VR-sham and VR-TMS for the FTT, and only the VR-sham showed significant improvement in the BBT. Regarding IHI, it showed significant changes in both groups but in opposite directions, the VR-TMS group showed an increasing ipsilesional fMRI activation during paretic hand tracking	Neutral
[33]	Evaluation was performed before and after the end of each of the three phases. Evaluation methods included: FMS and WMFS	During the VR-tDCS phase, the subject presented an improvement of 86.7% in the FMS, and an improvement of 10.9% and 12% in the WMFS time and ability scores	Positive
[32]	Evaluation was performed before and after the intervention. Clinical assessment included: FMS, the action research arm test (ARAT) and the Barthel Index (BI)	VR-sham and VR-tDCS groups showed significant improvements in FMS, ARAT and BI. Between groups, the improvements in these 3 evaluation methods for the VR-tDCS intervention were significantly higher than in VR-sham intervention	Positive