Evolving trends in virtual reality rehabilitation for stroke in research publications

Silvia Bargeri; Mariachiara Baggio; Stefania Guida; Greta Castellini; Silvia Gianola

doi:10.33393/aop.2024.3155

Authors

Silvia Bargeri Unità di Epidemiologia Clinica - IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan - Italy
Mariachiara Baggio University of Verona, Verona - Italy
Stefania Guida Unità di Epidemiologia Clinica - IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1809-061X
Greta Castellini Unità di Epidemiologia Clinica - IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan - Italy
Silvia Gianola Unità di Epidemiologia Clinica - IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3770-0011

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33393/aop.2024.3155

Keywords:

Randomized controlled trials as topic, Rehabilitation, Stroke, Systematic review, Virtual reality

Abstract

Objective: Virtual reality (VR) therapies have increasingly been adopted across medical fields, including neurorehabilitation for stroke recovery. Evidence from several systematic reviews (SRs) was explored, covering different aspects. We aim to explore overlaps, gaps, and trends of SRs focusing on VR stroke rehabilitation providing a foundation for improving the field and addressing limitations.
Methods: We moved from a recent overview of reviews, searching multiple databases for all published SRs and the international database of prospectively registered SRs (PROSPERO) for ongoing SRs. Data extraction of study characteristics and methodological quality of SRs using AMSTAR 2 were obtained from a recent overview of reviews. Two independent reviewers analyzed trends in published SRs, their included primary studies, ongoing SRs, and methodological quality.
Results: The data set included 58 SRs, with 345 primary studies and 45 ongoing SRs, published between 2007 and 2022. The number of published and ongoing SRs significantly increased over time (R2 = 0.8654; R2 = 0.747, respectively). In the last three years, Asia accounts for the majority of publications (31%). The main outcome assessed over time was upper extremity function and activity in 67.2% of SRs. Most of the published SRs were judged “critically low” (77.6%). The number of included studies increased over time reaching a median of 17 studies with a median of 493 participants.
Conclusions: In stroke rehabilitation, the published and ongoing SRs on VR have risen over time in terms of the number of publications, with some concerns about methodological quality and representation of countries around the world.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Sacco RL, Kasner SE, Broderick JP, et al. American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism. An updated definition of stroke for the 21st century: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44(7):2064-2089. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0b013e318296aeca PMID:23652265

GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204-1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9 PMID: 33069326.

Katan M, Luft A. Global Burden of Stroke. Semin Neurol. 2018;38(2):208-211. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1649503 PMID:29791947

Hatem SM, Saussez G, Della Faille M, et al. Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: A multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:442. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00442 PMID: 27679565

Laffont I, Van Dokkum L, Froger J, et al. Stroke patients: emerging rehabilitation techniques. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;55:e145-e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2012.07.377

Amirthalingam J, Paidi G, Alshowaikh K, et al. Virtual reality intervention to help improve motor function in patients undergoing rehabilitation for cerebral palsy, Parkinson's disease, or stroke: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Cureus. 2021;13(7):e16763. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.16763. PMID: 34367835

Ahmadi Marzaleh M, Peyravi M, Azhdari N, et al. Virtual reality applications for rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review. Health Sci Rep. 2022;5(6):e853. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.853. PMID: 36210874

Pallavicini F, Pepe A, Clerici M, et al. Virtual reality applications in medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: Systematic review. JMIR Serious Games. 2022;10(4):e35000. https://doi.org/10.2196/35000. PMID: 36282554

Kacmaz KS, Kaçmaz C. Bibliometric analysis of research in pediatrics related to virtual and augmented reality: A systematic review. Curr Pediatr Rev. 2024;20(2):178-187. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573396319666230214103103 PMID:36786143

Guo QF, He L, Su W, et al. Virtual reality for neurorehabilitation: A bibliometric analysis of knowledge structure and theme trends. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1042618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1042618. PMID: 36438265

Bargeri S, Scalea S, Agosta F, et al. Effectiveness and safety of virtual reality rehabilitation after stroke: an overview of systematic reviews. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;64:102220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102220. PMID: 37745019.

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):573-577. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 PMID:17938396

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008. PMID: 28935701

R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online https://www.R-project.org/ (Accessed June 2024)

Mauri M, Elli T, Caviglia G, et al. RAWGraphs: A visualisation platform to create open outputs. In Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter, 2017; 28: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125571.3125585

Pawassar CM, Tiberius V. Virtual reality in health care: Bibliometric analysis. JMIR Serious Games. 2021;9(4):e32721. https://doi.org/10.2196/32721. PMID: 34855606;

Fontelo P, Liu F. A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0819-1. PMID: 30261915

Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;138:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022 PMID:34091022

World stroke organization (WSO). Global Stroke Fact Sheet 2022. Extracted from Global Burden of Disease Stroke Statistics Worldwide for the year 2019. Online http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool (Accessed June 2024)

Ye XF, Yu DH, He J. The rise in meta-analyses from China. Epidemiology. 2013;24(2):335-336. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828264be PMID:23377096

Yang ZP, Ye XF, Fan DM. Meta-analysis is victim to Chinese academic and educational systems. J Formos Med Assoc. 2013 May;112(5):235- 6 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2012.09.019. PMID: 23660217

Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210. PMID: 27620683;

Wagner CS, Park HW, Leydesdorff L. The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131816. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131816 PMID: 26196296

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 PMID:843571

Saginur M, Fergusson D, Zhang T, et al. Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01305-w. PMID: 32164791

Tawfik GM, Giang HTN, Ghozy S, et al. Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):213.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01094-9 PMID: 32842968

Riva N, Puljak L, Moja L, et al. Multiple overlapping systematic reviews facilitate the origin of disputes: the case of thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.012 PMID:29175415

Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2799-2801. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2799 PMID:12038916

Page MJ, Forbes A, Chau M, et al. Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e011863. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011863. PMID: 27121706

Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009810. PMID: 20339557

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(10):MR000035. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2 PMID: 25271098;

Lazzarini SG, Stella Yousif M, Bargeri S, et al. Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02064-7.PMID: 37865743.

Higgins JPT, Lasserson T, Chandler J, et al. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Cochrane: London, Version February 2022. Online https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Cochrane%20MECIR_Standards%20FINAL%20booklet_web_version.pdf (Accessed June 2024)