[Systematic REVIEW] Can non-immersive virtual reality improve physical outcomes of rehabilitation? – Full Text HTML/PDF

• Abstract
• Full Text
• References
• Cited by
• Figures

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate whether non-immersive virtual reality interventions, either as an adjunct or an alternative to traditional therapy, can improve physical outcomes in rehabilitation.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE (1950 to present), CINAHL (1981 to present), AMED (1985 to present), EMBASE (1947 to present), Web of Science, PEDro, and Cochrane (no date limitation). Randomized controlled trials which explored the effects of non-immersive virtual reality on physical outcomes (physical function, movement, and balance) in populations of any age, sex, ethnicity or health condition, receiving rehabilitation were selected for review. We included virtual reality interventions that did not fully immerse the user; full immersion was defined as ‘a psychological state characterized by perceiving oneself to be enveloped by, included in, and interacting with an environment that provides a continuous stream of stimuli and experiences’.

Results: Sixteen randomized controlled trials were identified which matched inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies explored the use of non-immersive virtual reality on physical outcomes in the rehabilitation of persons with stroke, cardiopulmonary conditions, cerebral palsy, osteoarthritis, and balance disorders.

Conclusion: There is growing evidence for the usefulness of non-immersive virtual reality as an adjunct to conventional therapy on physical outcomes particularly in stroke rehabilitation. There is little evidence to suggest that non-immersive virtual reality is more effective than conventional rehabilitation on physical outcomes in all populations included for review.

Can non-immersive virtual reality improve physical outcomes of rehabilitation?: Physical Therapy Reviews: Vol 17, No 1.