Trial objective: To verify whether conventional rehabilitation combined with specific virtual reality is more effective than conventional therapy alone in restoring hand motor function and muscle tone after stroke. Trial design: This prospective single-blind randomized controlled trial compared conventional rehabilitation based on physiotherapy and occupational therapy (control group) with the combination of conventional rehabilitation and specific virtual reality technology (experimental group). Participants were allocated to these groups in a ratio of 1:1. The conventional rehabilitation therapists were blinded to the study, but neither the participants nor the therapist who applied the virtual reality–based therapy could be blinded to the intervention. Participants: Forty-six patients (43 of whom completed the intervention period and follow-up evaluation) were recruited from the Neurology and Rehabilitation units of the Hospital General Universitario of Talavera de la Reina, Spain. Intervention: Each participant completed 15 treatment sessions lasting 150 min/session; the sessions took place five consecutive days/week over the course of three weeks. The experimental group received conventional upper-limb strength and motor training (100 min/session) combined with specific virtual reality technology devices (50 min/session); the control group received only conventional training (150 min/session). Results: As measured by the Ashworth Scale, a decrease in wrist muscle tone was observed in both groups (control and experimental), with a notably larger decrease in the experimental group (baseline mean/postintervention mean: 1.22/0.39; difference between baseline and follow-up: 0.78; 95% confidence interval: 0.38–1.18; effect size = 0.206). Fugl-Meyer Assessment scores were observed to increase in both groups, with a notably larger increase in the experimental group (total motor function: effect size = 0.300; mean: − 35.5; 95% confidence interval: − 38.9 to − 32.0; wrist: effect size = 0.290; mean: − 5.6; 95% confidence interval: − 6.4 to − 4.8; hand: effect size = 0.299; mean: − -8.9; 95% confidence interval: − 10.1 to − 7.6). On the Action Research Arm Test, the experimental group quadrupled its score after the combined intervention (effect size = 0.321; mean: − 32.8; 95% confidence interval: − 40.1 to − 25.5). Conclusion: The outcomes of the study suggest that conventional rehabilitation combined with a specific virtual reality technology system can be more effective than conventional programs alone in improving hand motor function and voluntary movement and in normalizing muscle tone in subacute stroke patients. With combined treatment, hand and wrist functionality and motion increase; resistance to movement (spasticity) decreases and remains at a reduced level. Trials Registry: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: ISRCTN27760662 (15/06/2020; retrospectively registered).

The accessibility, versatility and motivation provided by virtual reality technology (VRT) have fostered its rapid expansion as a rehabilitation technique to improve functional mobility. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes using VRT, specific virtual reality technology (VRT-S) and non-specific virtual reality technology (VRT-NS), to improve functional mobility in individuals aged >60 years versus conventional treatment (CT) or no intervention. Nine databases (Cochrane Library, Scopus, PEDro, Medline, CSIC, Web of Science, OT Seeker, NGCH and CINAHL) were searched to identify randomised trials up to December 2019. Results of clinical trials that used VRT-S and VRT-NS in rehabilitation were combined, using a random effects model with inverse variance weighting of the studies. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42019131630. Overall, there was moderate quality of evidence for the functional mobility results, which means that the estimate of effect is likely to change. Sixteen of the 18 studies selected (n = 568) provided data for the subgroup meta-analysis. VRT-NS was more effective in improving functional mobility than no intervention [standardised mean difference (SMD) = -1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1,91 to -0,14). VRT-NS was also more effective than CT in improving resistance in ambulation (SMD = -1.20; 95% CI -1.93 to 0.46). No significant differences were found between VRT-S and CT or no intervention. Programmes in which >18 sessions were applied were more beneficial (SMD = -0.89; 95% CI -1.71 to -0.08; <0.001) than programmes with ≤18 sessions (SMD = 0.04; 95% CI -0.51 to 0.59) versus no intervention. Our results suggest that VRT is an effective intervention for improving functional mobility in older persons compared with CT. VRT-NS proved to be more effective than VRT-S. However, these results are still not conclusive due to the low methodological quality of the studies. Thus, new studies and analyses are required.