↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
260 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
566 Mendeley
Title
Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laver, Kate E, George, Stacey, Thomas, Susie, Deutsch, Judith E, Crotty, Maria

Abstract

Virtual reality and interactive video gaming have emerged as recent treatment approaches in stroke rehabilitation. In particular, commercial gaming consoles have been rapidly adopted in clinical settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2011. To determine the efficacy of virtual reality compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on upper limb function and activity. To determine the efficacy of virtual reality compared with an alternative intervention or no intervention on: gait and balance activity, global motor function, cognitive function, activity limitation, participation restriction and quality of life, voxels or regions of interest identified via imaging, and adverse events. Additionally, we aimed to comment on the feasibility of virtual reality for use with stroke patients by reporting on patient eligibility criteria and recruitment. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2013), EMBASE (1980 to November 2013) 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 function and activity, 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 authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We included 37 trials that involved 1019 participants. Study sample sizes were generally small and interventions varied. 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 'low' or 'very low' quality when rated using the GRADE system. Control groups received no intervention or therapy based on a standard care approach. Intervention approaches in the included studies were predominantly designed to improve motor function rather than cognitive function or activity performance. The majority of participants were relatively young and more than one year post stroke. results were statistically significant for upper limb function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.08 to 0.49 based on 12 studies with 397 participants). there were no statistically significant effects for grip strength, gait speed or global motor function. Results were statistically significant for the activities of daily living (ADL) outcome (SMD 0.43, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.69 based on eight studies with 253 participants); however, we were unable to pool results for cognitive function, participation restriction, quality of life or imaging studies. There were few adverse events reported across studies and those reported were relatively mild. Studies that reported on eligibility rates showed that only 26% of participants screened were recruited. We found evidence that the use of virtual reality and interactive video gaming may be beneficial in improving upper limb function and ADL function when used as an adjunct to usual care (to increase overall therapy time) or when compared with the same dose of conventional therapy. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about the effect of virtual reality and interactive video gaming on grip strength, gait speed or global motor function. It is unclear at present which characteristics of virtual reality are most important and it is unknown whether effects are sustained in the longer term.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 566 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 553 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 117 21%
Student > Bachelor 95 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 14%
Researcher 50 9%
Student > Postgraduate 32 6%
Other 118 21%
Unknown 72 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 88 16%
Engineering 57 10%
Psychology 44 8%
Neuroscience 44 8%
Other 117 21%
Unknown 97 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,425,792
of 10,768,289 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,392
of 9,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,978
of 233,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#171
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,768,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 233,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.