↓ Skip to main content

Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
117 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
803 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008349.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate E Laver, Belinda Lange, Stacey George, Judith E Deutsch, Gustavo Saposnik, Maria Crotty

Abstract

Virtual reality and interactive video gaming have emerged as recent treatment approaches in stroke rehabilitation with commercial gaming consoles in particular, being rapidly adopted in clinical settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published first in 2011 and then again in 2015. Primary objective: to determine the efficacy of virtual reality compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on upper limb function and activity.Secondary objectives: to determine the efficacy of virtual reality compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on: gait and balance, global motor function, cognitive function, activity limitation, participation restriction, quality of life, and adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2017), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven additional databases. We also searched trials registries and reference lists. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of virtual reality ("an advanced form of human-computer interface that allows the user to 'interact' with and become 'immersed' in a computer-generated environment in a naturalistic fashion") in adults after stroke. The primary outcome of interest was upper limb function and activity. Secondary outcomes included gait and balance and global motor function. Two review authors independently selected trials based on pre-defined inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third review author moderated disagreements when required. The review authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We included 72 trials that involved 2470 participants. This review includes 35 new studies in addition to the studies included in the previous version of this review. Study sample sizes were generally small and interventions varied in terms of both the goals of treatment and the virtual reality devices used. The risk of bias present in many studies was unclear due to poor reporting. Thus, while there are a large number of randomised controlled trials, the evidence remains mostly low quality when rated using the GRADE system. Control groups usually received no intervention or therapy based on a standard-care approach. results were not statistically significant for upper limb function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.05 to 0.20, 22 studies, 1038 participants, low-quality evidence) when comparing virtual reality to conventional therapy. However, when virtual reality was used in addition to usual care (providing a higher dose of therapy for those in the intervention group) there was a statistically significant difference between groups (SMD 0.49, 0.21 to 0.77, 10 studies, 210 participants, low-quality evidence). when compared to conventional therapy approaches there were no statistically significant effects for gait speed or balance. Results were statistically significant for the activities of daily living (ADL) outcome (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.43, 10 studies, 466 participants, moderate-quality evidence); however, we were unable to pool results for cognitive function, participation restriction, or quality of life. Twenty-three studies reported that they monitored for adverse events; across these studies there were few adverse events and those reported were relatively mild. We found evidence that the use of virtual reality and interactive video gaming was not more beneficial than conventional therapy approaches in improving upper limb function. Virtual reality may be beneficial in improving upper limb function and activities of daily living function when used as an adjunct to usual care (to increase overall therapy time). There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the effect of virtual reality and interactive video gaming on gait speed, balance, participation, or quality of life. This review found that time since onset of stroke, severity of impairment, and the type of device (commercial or customised) were not strong influencers of outcome. There was a trend suggesting that higher dose (more than 15 hours of total intervention) was preferable as were customised virtual reality programs; however, these findings were not statistically significant.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 117 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 803 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 781 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 171 21%
Student > Bachelor 134 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 122 15%
Unspecified 91 11%
Researcher 80 10%
Other 205 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 176 22%
Unspecified 148 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 124 15%
Engineering 79 10%
Computer Science 59 7%
Other 217 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2019.
All research outputs
#157,961
of 13,216,354 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#356
of 10,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,238
of 387,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,216,354 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.