Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2019
Effectiveness of Virtual Reality- and Gaming-Based Interventions for Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Poststroke: A Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Karamians Reneh, Proffitt Rachel, Kline David, Gauthier Lynne V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of virtual reality (VR)- and gaming-based interventions for improving upper extremity function poststroke, and to examine demographic and treatment-related factors that may moderate treatment response.
DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted within the PubMed, CINAHL/EBSCO, SCOPUS, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases for articles published between 2005 and 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: Articles investigating gaming and VR methods of treatment for upper extremity weakness were collected with the following study inclusion criteria: (1) participants aged 18 years or older with upper extremity deficits; (2) randomized controlled trials or prospective study design; (3) Downs-Black rating score of ≥18; and (4) outcome measure was the Wolf Motor Functioning Test, the Fugl-Meyer, or the Action Research Arm Test.
DATA EXTRACTION: Thirty-eight articles met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was proportional improvement on the Wolf Motor Functioning Test, Fugl-Meyer, or Action Research Arm Test. The following individual or treatment factors were extracted: VR or gaming dose, total treatment dose, chronicity (> or <6mo), severity of motor impairment, and presence of a gaming component.
DATA ANALYSIS: Random effects meta-analysis models were utilized to quantify (1) the proportional recovery that occurs after VR or gaming; (2) the comparative treatment effect of VR or gaming vs conventional physiotherapy; and (3) whether the benefit of virtual reality differed based on participant characteristics or elements of the treatment.
RESULTS: On average, VR or gaming interventions produced an improvement of 28.5% of the maximal possible improvement. Dose and severity of motor impairment did not significantly influence rehabilitation outcomes. Treatment gains were significantly larger overall (10.8%) when the computerized training involved a gaming component vs just visual feedback. VR or gaming interventions showed a significant treatment advantage (10.4%) over active control treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, VR- or gaming-based upper extremity rehabilitation poststroke appears to be more effective than conventional methods. Further in-depth study of variables affecting improvement, such as individual motor presentation, treatment dose, and the relationship between them, are needed.
DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted within the PubMed, CINAHL/EBSCO, SCOPUS, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases for articles published between 2005 and 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: Articles investigating gaming and VR methods of treatment for upper extremity weakness were collected with the following study inclusion criteria: (1) participants aged 18 years or older with upper extremity deficits; (2) randomized controlled trials or prospective study design; (3) Downs-Black rating score of ≥18; and (4) outcome measure was the Wolf Motor Functioning Test, the Fugl-Meyer, or the Action Research Arm Test.
DATA EXTRACTION: Thirty-eight articles met inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was proportional improvement on the Wolf Motor Functioning Test, Fugl-Meyer, or Action Research Arm Test. The following individual or treatment factors were extracted: VR or gaming dose, total treatment dose, chronicity (> or <6mo), severity of motor impairment, and presence of a gaming component.
DATA ANALYSIS: Random effects meta-analysis models were utilized to quantify (1) the proportional recovery that occurs after VR or gaming; (2) the comparative treatment effect of VR or gaming vs conventional physiotherapy; and (3) whether the benefit of virtual reality differed based on participant characteristics or elements of the treatment.
RESULTS: On average, VR or gaming interventions produced an improvement of 28.5% of the maximal possible improvement. Dose and severity of motor impairment did not significantly influence rehabilitation outcomes. Treatment gains were significantly larger overall (10.8%) when the computerized training involved a gaming component vs just visual feedback. VR or gaming interventions showed a significant treatment advantage (10.4%) over active control treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, VR- or gaming-based upper extremity rehabilitation poststroke appears to be more effective than conventional methods. Further in-depth study of variables affecting improvement, such as individual motor presentation, treatment dose, and the relationship between them, are needed.