I got nothing out of this, numbers not meaning a thing and with no protocol produced, USELESS.
Aminov et al. (2018). What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta- analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes
Anna Aminov 1,
Jeffrey M. Rogers 2,
Sandy Middleton 1,
Karen Caeyenberghs 3,4
and Peter H. Wilson 1,3,4*
and Peter H. Wilson 1,3,4*
Abstract
Background:
Virtual-reality based rehabilitation (VR) shows potential as an engaging and effective way to improve upper limb function and cognitive abilities following a stroke. However, an updated synthesis of the literature is needed to capture growth in recent research and address gaps in our understanding of factors that may optimize training parameters and treatment effects.
Methods:
Published randomized controlled trials comparing VR to conventional therapy were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Treatment effects (Hedge’s g) were estimated using a random effects model, with motor andfunctional outcomes between different protocols compared at the
Body Structure/Function, Activity, and Participation levels of the International Classification of Functioning.
Results:
Thirty-three studies were identified, including 971 participants (492 VR participants). VR produced
small to medium overall effects (g = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.33–0.59, p < 0.01), above and beyond conventional therapies. Small to medium effects were observed on Body Structure/Function
(g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–0.55; p < 0.01) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.34–0.60, p < 0.01), while Participation outcomes failed to reach significance (g = 0.38;95% CI: -0.29-1.04, p
= 0.27). Superior benefits for Body Structure/Function (g = 0.56) and Activity outcomes (g =0.62) were observed when examining outcomes only from purpose-designed VR systems. Preliminary results (k = 4) suggested small to medium effects for cognitive outcomes (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–
0.55; p < 0.01). Moderator analysis found no advantage for higher doses of VR, massed practice training schedules, or greater time since injury.
Conclusion:
VR can effect significant gains on Body Structure/Function and Activity level outcomes, including improvements in cognitive function, for individuals who have sustained a stroke. The evidence supports the use of VR as an adjunct for stroke rehabilitation, with effectiveness evident for a variety of platforms, training parameters, and stages of recovery.
Keywords:
Cognition, Meta-analysis, Motor performance, Rehabilitation, Stroke, Virtual reality
* Correspondence: peterh.wilson@acu.edu.au
1 School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian CatholicUniversity, Sydney, NSW, Australia
3 School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC,AustraliaFull list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2018
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Aminov
et al. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
(2018) 15:29
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0370-2
Virtual-reality based rehabilitation (VR) shows potential as an engaging and effective way to improve upper limb function and cognitive abilities following a stroke. However, an updated synthesis of the literature is needed to capture growth in recent research and address gaps in our understanding of factors that may optimize training parameters and treatment effects.
Methods:
Published randomized controlled trials comparing VR to conventional therapy were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Treatment effects (Hedge’s g) were estimated using a random effects model, with motor andfunctional outcomes between different protocols compared at the
Body Structure/Function, Activity, and Participation levels of the International Classification of Functioning.
Results:
Thirty-three studies were identified, including 971 participants (492 VR participants). VR produced
small to medium overall effects (g = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.33–0.59, p < 0.01), above and beyond conventional therapies. Small to medium effects were observed on Body Structure/Function
(g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–0.55; p < 0.01) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.34–0.60, p < 0.01), while Participation outcomes failed to reach significance (g = 0.38;95% CI: -0.29-1.04, p
= 0.27). Superior benefits for Body Structure/Function (g = 0.56) and Activity outcomes (g =0.62) were observed when examining outcomes only from purpose-designed VR systems. Preliminary results (k = 4) suggested small to medium effects for cognitive outcomes (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–
0.55; p < 0.01). Moderator analysis found no advantage for higher doses of VR, massed practice training schedules, or greater time since injury.
Conclusion:
VR can effect significant gains on Body Structure/Function and Activity level outcomes, including improvements in cognitive function, for individuals who have sustained a stroke. The evidence supports the use of VR as an adjunct for stroke rehabilitation, with effectiveness evident for a variety of platforms, training parameters, and stages of recovery.
Keywords:
Cognition, Meta-analysis, Motor performance, Rehabilitation, Stroke, Virtual reality
* Correspondence: peterh.wilson@acu.edu.au
1 School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian CatholicUniversity, Sydney, NSW, Australia
3 School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC,AustraliaFull list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2018
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Aminov
et al. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
(2018) 15:29
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0370-2
No comments:
Post a Comment