Effectiveness and safety of virtual reality rehabilitation after stroke: an overview of systematic reviews

Background Virtual reality (VR) is an innovative neurorehabilitation modality that has been variously examined in systematic reviews. We assessed VR effectiveness and safety after cerebral stroke. Methods In this overview of systematic reviews, we searched eleven databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Pedro, Otseeker, Healthevidence.org, Epistemonikos) and grey literature from inception to January 17, 2023. Studies eligible for in-clusion were systematic reviews published in English that included adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of stroke (acute to chronic phase) undergoing any kind of immersive, semi-immersive or non-immersive VR intervention with or without conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone. The primary outcome was motor upper limb function and activity. The secondary outcomes were gait and balance, cognitive and mental function, limitation of activities, participation, and adverse events. We calculated the degree of overlap between reviews based on the corrected covered area (CCA). Methodological quality was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) and the Certainty of Evidence (CoE) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Discordances between results were examined using a conceptual framework based on the Jadad algorithm. This overview is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022329263.Findings Of the 58 reviews included (n = 345 unique primary studies), 42 (72.4%) had conducted meta-analysis. More than half of the reviews (58.6%) were published between 2020 and 2022 and many (77.6%) were judged critically low in quality by AMSTAR 2. Most reported the Fugl Meyer Assessment scale (FMA-UE) to measure upper limb function and activity. For the primary outcome, there was a moderate overlap of primary studies (CCA 9.0%) with discordant findings. Focusing on upper limb function (FMA-UE), VR with or without conventional therapy seems to be more effective than conventional therapy alone, with low to moderate CoE and probable to definite clinical relevance. For secondary outcomes there was uncertainty about the superiority or no difference between groups due to substantial heterogeneity of measurement scales (eg, methodological choices). A few reviews (n = 6) reported the occurrence of mild adverse events.Interpretation Current evidence suggests that multiple meta-analyses agreed on the superiority of VR with or without conventional therapy over conventional therapy on FME-UE for upper limb. Clinicians may consider embedding VR technologies into their practice as appropriate with patient's goals, abilities, and preferences. However, caution is needed given the poor methodological quality of reviews.