Table 2.

Characteristics of the included studies for balance.

Author(s), year	Aim	ka	Sample size	Measuring instrument	Effect size			I2	kadj
					Effect size	95% CI (LLb to ULc)	P value
Gibbons et al, 2016 [23]	Effects of VRd on lower limb outcomes in stroke patients	9	EGe: 104; CGf: 95	BBSg, FRTh	0.42	0.11 to 0.73	.42	10	4.077
Iruthayarajah et al, 2017 [24]	To evaluate the effectiveness of VR interventions in improving balance in a chronic stroke population	12	EG: 132; CG: 142	BBS	0.506	0.259 to 0.753	≤.001	2.622	5.012
Mohammadi et al, 2019 [25]	To evaluate the effect of VR on balance as compared with that of conventional therapy alone poststroke	13	EG: 161; CG: 153	BBS, FRT, PASi	0.64	0.36 to 0.92	.083	36.7	5.530
Liang et al, 2020 [26]	To evaluate the effectiveness of VR technology in promoting balance and walking function rehabilitation in stroke	17	EG: 215; CG: 217	FRT, PAS	4.09	2.20 to 5.97	≤.001	84.5	8.513

^ak: number of primary studies.

^bLL: lower limit.

^cUL: upper limit.

^dVR: virtual reality.

^eEG: experimental group.

^fCG: control group.

^gBBS: Berg Balance Scale.

^hFRT: functional reach test.

ⁱPAS: Postural Assessment Scale.