TABLE 1.
Characteristics of all included studies.
| Study | Patients | Equipment used besides VR | Control group | Training task | Outcome | Results |
| Jaffe et al., 2004 | 20 (EG:10/CG:10) Chronic stroke |
Treadmill | Conventional training with foam made obstacles | Gait | Walk speed, stride length, step length, 6 MWT | Intervention had a significant faster walking speed and longer stride length for the fast pace walking (p < 0.01) |
| Ma and Bechkoum, 2008 | 8 (EG:4/CG:4) Chronic stroke |
Controllers | Functional training | Arm rehab | ARAT, Motricity Index | The VR intervention presented a higher probability for improvement regarding the MI (p = 0.0389 vs. p = 0.1391), similar results were noted in ARAT too |
| Connelly et al., 2010 | 14 (EG:7/CG:7) Chronic stroke |
PneuGlove | Same training outside the VR environment | Arm | FMA-UE, box blocks T, grip strength, lateral, and palmar pinch | No significant difference between groups (p = 0.904) |
| Crosbie et al., 2012 | 18 (EG:9/CG:9) Chronic stroke |
Sensors | Physical therapy | Arm | ARAT, Motricity Index | No statistical significance differences between groups (MI: p = 0.485, ARAT: p = 0.139) |
| Jung et al., 2012 | 21 (EG:11/CG:10) Chronic stroke |
Treadmill | Conventional treadmill training | Balance | TUG, ABC scale | Significant difference between groups TUG (-2.7 ± 1.9 vs. -0.8 ± 0.7, p < 0.05) ABC (9.5 ± 6.0 vs. 4.3 ± 3.3, p < 0.05) |
| Kang et al., 2012 | 30 (EG:10/TIG:10/CG:10) Chronic stroke |
Treadmill with optic flow | TIG: Conventional treadmill CG: physical therapy |
Gait/balance | TUG, 10 MWT, 6 MWT, FRT | Significant difference between groups TUG (13.2 ± 2 vs. 17.9 ± 4.5 vs. 20 ± 5.0, p < 0.001) FRT (30.7 ± 1.3 vs. 30.4 ± 2.5 vs. 28.2 ± 2.3, p < 0.001) 6 MWT (264.8 ± 18.6 vs. 242.3 ± 26.0 vs. 240.9 ± 22.4, p < 0.001) |
| Kim and Lee, 2012 | 19 (EG:10/CG:09) Chronic stroke (>6 months) |
Treadmill + FES | Treadmill + FES | Balance Gait |
TUG, BBS | Significant difference between groups: TUG (-7.54 ± 2.74 vs. -6.14 ± 2.57, p < 0.05) |
| Park et al., 2013 | 16 (EG:8/CG:8) Chronic stroke |
Physical therapy | Gait | Velocity, cadence, step length, stride length, 10 MWT | Significant difference between groups only in stride length (p < 0.05) | |
| Lee et al., 2014 | 21 (EG:10/CG:11) Chronic stroke (>6 months) |
Physical therapy | Posture (balance/gait) | TUG, BBS, velocity, cadence, step, and stride length | No difference between groups | |
| Ögün et al., 2019 | 64 (EG:32/CG:32) Chronic stroke |
Leap motion tracking device | Conventional upper extremity exercises | Arm rehab | ARAT, FIM, FMA-UE, PASS | Significant difference (p < 0.001) between groups for all outcomes ARAT (8.33 ± 4.44 vs. 1.25 ± 1.45) FMA-UE (6.90 ± 3.99 vs. 1.50 ± 1.48) |
| Cho and Lee, 2019 | 42 (EG:21/CG:21) Acute stage |
Computerized cognitive therapy | Arm | FIM | Significant difference between groups in functional independence measure (19.19 ± 13.2 vs. 9.43 ± 15, p < 0.05) | |
| Mekbib et al., 2021 | 23 (EG:12/CG:11) Sub-acute (<3 months) |
Leap motion tracking device | Occupational Therapy | Arm rehab | FMA-UE, BI | Significant difference between groups in FMA-UE (12.25 ± 4.58 vs. 7.704 ± 2.54, p = 0.007). |
CS, case study; EG, experimental group; TIG, traditional intervention group; CG, control group; CybGlov, cyber glove; ARAT, action reach arm test; FMA-UE, Fugl-Meyer assessment of upper extremity function; ABC, activities balance confidence; BBS, Berg Balance Scale; BI, Barthel Index; FRT, functional reach test; FIM, functional independence measurement; PPT, Purdue Pegboard test; TUG, time up and go.