Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of the effectiveness of virtual reality therapy compared to passive intervention by outcomes in Parkinson’s disease

From: The effectiveness of virtual reality for rehabilitation of Parkinson disease: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses

Outcomes

Study

Effect estimation (95 % CI)

Studies (participants)

Certainty of the evidence

(GRADE)

Gait speed

Triegaardt J (2020) [19]

SMD 1.43 (0.51, 2.34)

1 (24)

⊕⊕〇〇

Lowc,d

Stride/step length

Triegaardt J (2020) [19]

SMD 1.27 (0.38, 2.16)

1 (24)

⊕⊕〇〇

Lowc,d

Balance (BBS)

Triegaardt J (2020) [19]

SMD 1.02 (0.38, 1.65)

2 (44)

⊕⊕〇〇

Lowa,c,g

Balance (BBS/TUG)

Dockx K (2016) [26]

SMD 1.02 (0.38, 1.65)

2 (44)

⊕〇〇〇

Very lowa,c

Activities of daily living (MBI)

Triegaardt J (2020) [19]

SMD 0.96 (0.02, 1.89)

1 (20)

⊕〇〇〇

Very lowa,c

Postural control (SOT)

Harris DM (2015) [27]

SMD 2.57(1.53, 3.60)

1 (28)

⊕⊕⊕〇

Moderatec,d,g

  1. CI confidence intervals, GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, SMD standard mean difference, BBS Berg balance scale, TUG Timed Up and Go test, MBI modified Barthel index, SOT sensory organization test
  2. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence—high certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  3. aHigh risk of bias in at least a half of studies included within the analysis, hence bias is highly likely. Therefore, the certainty of evidence was downgraded by two levels due to the methodological limitations (risk of bias)
  4. bSubstantial heterogeneity among trials (I2 equal or more than 50%, equal or less than 90%). Therefore, the certainty of evidence was downgraded by one level (inconsistency)
  5. cThe total population size was small (<400). Therefore, the certainty of evidence was downgraded by one level (imprecision)
  6. dHigh risk of bias in less than a half of studies included within the analysis, hence bias is highly likely. Therefore, the certainty of evidence was downgraded by one level due to the methodological limitations (risk of bias)
  7. eConsiderable heterogeneity among trials (I2>90%). Therefore, the certainty of evidence was downgraded by two levels (inconsistency)
  8. fDifferent ways of assessment were used across studies. Therefore, the certainty of evidence was downgraded by one level (indirectness)
  9. gThe estimated effect was large reaching a plausible clinically relevant magnitude. Therefore, the certainty of evidence was upgraded by one level (other consideration, large effect)
Back to article page

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053