Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies for upper limb function.

Author(s), year	Aim	ka	Sample size	Measuring instrument	Effect size			I2	kadj
					Effect size	95% CI (LLb to ULc)	P value
Yang et al, 2013 [18]	Effect of VRd technology on the rehabilitation of upper and lower limb motor function in stroke patients	8	EGe: 164; CGf: 143	FMA-UEg	4.27	2.47 to 6.06	≤.001	0	3.033
Laver et al, 2017 [19]	To determine the efficacy of VR compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on upper limb function and activity	10	EG: 191; CG: 172	FMA-UE	3.30	1.29 to 5.32	.001	0	4.867
Maier et al, 2019 [20]	To evaluate the efficacy of specific VR and nonspecific VR systems for rehabilitating upper limb function and activity after stroke	17	EG: 704; CG: 551	FMA-UE	0.21	0.08 to 0.33	.002	12	7.950
Zhong et al, 2019 [21]	To evaluate the VR technology on the clinical curative effect of upper limb function in patients undergoing cerebral apoplexy hemiplegia rehabilitation	17	EG: 283; CG: 274	FMA-UE	5.33	3.54 to 7.13	≤.001	22	8.117
Domínguez-Téllez et al, 2020 [2]	To evaluate game-based VR interventions to improve upper limb motor function and quality of life after stroke	9	EG: 154; CG: 148	FMA-UE	1.53	0.51 to 2.54	.003	92	3.417
Mekbib et al, 2020 [22]	To evaluate the overall effectiveness of VR therapies compared with that of conventional therapies in the recovery of upper limb functions across the 3 ICFh domains	19	EG: 363; CG: 345	FMA-UE	3.84	0.93 to 6.75	.01	64	9.950

^ak: number of primary studies.

^bLL: lower limit.

^cUL: upper limit.

^dVR: virtual reality.

^eEG: experimental group.

^fCG: control group.

^gFMA-UE: Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity Scale.

^hICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.