↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Virtual reality for rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 blog
16 tweeters
4 Facebook pages
5 Wikipedia pages


133 Dimensions

Readers on

714 Mendeley
Virtual reality for rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010760.pub2
Pubmed ID

Kim Dockx, Esther MJ Bekkers, Veerle Van den Bergh, Pieter Ginis, Lynn Rochester, Jeffrey M Hausdorff, Anat Mirelman, Alice Nieuwboer


Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that is best managed by a combination of medication and regular physiotherapy. In this context, virtual reality (VR) technology is proposed as a new rehabilitation tool with a possible added value over traditional physiotherapy approaches. It potentially optimises motor learning in a safe environment, and by replicating real-life scenarios could help improve functional activities of daily living. The objective of this review was to summarise the current best evidence for the effectiveness of VR interventions for the rehabilitation of people with PD in comparison with 1) active interventions, and 2) passive interventions. Our primary goal was to determine the effect of VR training on gait and balance. Secondary goals included examining the effects of VR on global motor function, activities of daily living, quality of life, cognitive function, exercise adherence, and the occurrence of adverse events. We identified relevant articles through electronic searches of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), online trials registers, and by handsearching reference lists. We carried out all searches up until 26 November 2016. We searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of VR exercise interventions in people with PD. We included only trials where motor rehabilitation was the primary goal. Two review authors independently searched for trials that corresponded to the predefined inclusion criteria. We independently extracted and assessed all data for methodological quality. A third review author was responsible for conflict resolution when required. We included 8 trials involving 263 people with PD in the review. Risk of bias was unclear or high for all but one of the included studies. Study sample sizes were small, and there was a large amount of heterogeneity between trials with regard to study design and the outcome measures used. As a result, we graded the quality of the evidence as low or very low. Most of the studies intended to improve motor function using commercially available devices, which were compared with physiotherapy. The interventions lasted for between 4 and 12 weeks.In comparison to physiotherapy, VR may lead to a moderate improvement in step and stride length (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.08; 3 studies; 106 participants; low-quality evidence). VR and physiotherapy interventions may have similar effects on gait (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.55; 4 studies; 129 participants; low-quality evidence), balance (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.71; 5 studies; 155 participants; low-quality evidence), and quality of life (mean difference 3.73 units, 95% CI -2.16 to 9.61; 4 studies; 106 participants). VR interventions did not lead to any reported adverse events, and exercise adherence did not differ between VR and other intervention arms.The evidence available comparing VR exercise with a passive control was more limited. The evidence for the main outcomes of interest was of very low quality due to the very small sample sizes of the two studies available for this comparison. We found low-quality evidence of a positive effect of short-term VR exercise on step and stride length. VR and physiotherapy may have similar effects on gait, balance, and quality of life. The evidence available comparing VR with passive control interventions was more limited. Additional high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 714 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 711 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 122 17%
Student > Bachelor 119 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 11%
Researcher 54 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 6%
Other 136 19%
Unknown 161 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 151 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 147 21%
Neuroscience 48 7%
Psychology 36 5%
Engineering 32 4%
Other 108 15%
Unknown 192 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 07 June 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,904,439 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 395,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,904,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 395,067 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.