NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials have begun to investigate the effects of virtual reality (VR) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). The aim of this overview of was to systematically summarize the current best evidence for the effectiveness of VR therapy for the rehabilitation of people with PD. Methods: : We searched SRs/MAs based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for relevant literature in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases from inception to December 5, 2020. The methodological quality of included SRs/MAs was evaluated with the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and the evidence quality of outcome measures with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: : A total of nine SRs/MAs were included. The evaluation with AMSTAR-2 showed that all included SRs/MAs but one were rated as low or critically low quality studies. The GRADE criteria revealed 19 studies with very-low-quality evidences, 20 with low-quality evidences, 8 with moderate-quality evidences, and 1 with high-quality evidence. Effectiveness evaluation showed that VR therapy had greater improvement of stride length compared with control groups. However, there were inconsistent results (better or similar effects) regarding to gait speed, gait ability, balance, global motor function, activities of daily living, quality of life, postural control, cognitive function, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Conclusions: : VR therapy appears to be a promising and effective treatment for PD, but there is still a lack of high-quality evidence. In the future, rigorous-designed, high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to further verify the effectiveness of VR therapy in the treatment of PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.