Comparison of immersive and non-immersive virtual reality for upper extremity functional recovery in patients with stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to compare the effects of immersive and non-immersive virtual reality on upper extremity function in stroke survivors by employing a network meta-analysis approach.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, APA PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched. Virtual reality was used for upper extremity rehabilitation; dose-matched conventional rehabilitation was used for comparison. Fugl-Meyer Assessment was used to assess upper extremity function. Searches were limited to English language randomized controlled trials.MethodsTwo independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted by assuming a common random-effects standard deviation for all comparisons in the network.ResultsTwenty randomized controlled trials with 813 participants were included, with each study evaluated as good quality. Immersive virtual reality systems were most effective at improving upper extremity function, followed by non-immersive virtual reality systems, then non-immersive gaming consoles of Microsoft Kinect and Nintendo Wii. Conventional rehabilitation was least effective. Immersive virtual reality was estimated to induce 1.39 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25, 2.53) and 1.38 (95% CI: 0.55, 2.20) standard mean differences of improvements in upper extremity function, compared to Nintendo Wii intervention and conventional rehabilitation, respectively.ConclusionThis systematic review and network meta-analysis highlights the superior effects of immersive virtual reality to non-immersive virtual reality systems and gaming consoles on upper extremity motor recovery.