SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The role of virtual reality on outcomes in rehabilitation of Parkinson's disease: meta-analysis and systematic review in 1031 participants.

Neurol Sci · 2019-12-06

DOI: 10.1007/s10072-019-04144-3PMID: 31808000

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

IntroductionParkinson's disease (PD) is managed primarily by dopamine agonists and physiotherapy while virtual reality (VR) has emerged recently as a complementary method. The present study reviewed the effectiveness of VR in rehabilitation of patients with PD.MethodsLiterature search up to June 2019 identified ten studies (n = 343 participants) suitable for meta-analysis and 27 studies (n = 688 participants) for systematic review. Standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model.ResultsIn meta-analysis, compared with active rehabilitation intervention, VR training led to greater improvement of stride length, SMD = 0.70 (95%CI = 0.32-1.08, p = 0.0003), and was as effective for gait speed, balance and co-ordination, cognitive function and mental health, quality of life and activities of daily living. Compared with passive rehabilitation intervention, VR had greater effects on balance: SMD = 1.02 (95%CI = 0.38-1.65, p = 0.002). Results from single randomised controlled trials showed that VR training was better than passive rehabilitation intervention for improving gait speed SMD = 1.43 (95%CI = 0.51-2.34, p = 0.002), stride length SMD = 1.27 (95%CI = 0.38-2.16, p = 0.005) and activities of daily living SMD = 0.96 (95%CI = 0.02-1.89). Systematic review showed that VR training significantly (p ConclusionVR used in rehabilitation for patients with PD improves a number of outcomes and may be considered for routine use in rehabilitation.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.