Background: Stroke frequently leads to various functional impairments. Both virtual reality (VR) and mirror therapy (MT) have shown efficacy in stroke rehabilitation. In recent years, the combination of these 2 approaches has emerged as a potential treatment for patients with stroke. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of combined immersive and nonimmersive VR with MT in stroke rehabilitation. Methods: Five electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant papers published up to January 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the combination treatment of VR and MT for patients with stroke were included. A gray literature search was also conducted. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines, respectively. Results: A total of 475 patients from 14 RCTs were included, of which 7 were eligible for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in upper extremity (UE) motor function and hand dexterity, as evidenced by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment–Upper Extremity (FMA-UE; mean difference, MD 3.50, 95% CI 1.47 to 5.53; P =.<001), the manual function test (MD 2.15, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.09; P <.001), and the Box and Block Test (MD 1.09, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.05; P =.03). Subgroup analyses based on disease duration (>6 months or not) revealed significant differences in the FMA-UE outcome. However, the pooled FMA-UE improvement did not consistently exceed the established minimal clinically important difference (4.25‐7.25), indicating that while statistically significant, the clinical significance of the observed effect remains uncertain. Narrative evidence also suggested potential benefits for lower extremity function, dynamic balance, and quality of life, though these findings were not meta-analyzed and should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: Moderate-quality evidence supports combined VR and MT as a promising nonpharmacological intervention to improve upper extremity function and hand dexterity in stroke rehabilitation. While the intervention demonstrates statistically significant effects, it does not reach the minimum clinically important difference for the FMA-UE outcome. Preliminary descriptive evidence indicates possible advantages for lower extremity function, balance, and quality of life.

Objective: Researchers have focused on gamma rhythm stimulation, particularly at 40 Hz, to enhance endogenous gamma oscillations and improve cognitive function and outcomes in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, some studies disputed these findings. This review aimed to systematically analyze recent randomized controlled trials on the effects of gamma stimulation on cognitive function in AD and to perform a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, and differences between brain and sensory stimulation. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid-Embase, and Ovid-MEDLINE from their inception to April 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate adverse events and cognitive function assessed using AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Face-Name Association Test (FNAT). Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the heterogeneity between the brain and sensory stimulation. Results: Eight studies involving 291 participants were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated a large benefit in cognitive function: FNAT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 3.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.52-4.99; I ² = 65%), MMSE (SMD = 3.09; 95% CI = 2.37-3.82; I ² = 0%), ADAS-cog (SMD = −4.16; 95% CI = −6.60 to −2.62; I ² = 0%), and MoCA (SMD = 2.17; 95% CI = −0.54 to 4.88; I ² = 0%). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the intervention and sham groups ( P = .06), suggesting the safety of gamma stimulation. Conclusion: This review highlights the safety and benefits of gamma stimulation for cognitive improvement in patients with AD, with sensory stimulation proving safe even in individuals with epilepsy.

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder worldwide. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and gait training have been demonstrated as effective treatments for patients with PD. However, the effects of combined tDCS and gait training on PD remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of combined tDCS and gait training in PD patients. We conducted literature searches in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, VIP, Wanfang, SinoMed, and the Chinese Medical Association Journal Database to identify the effects of combined transcranial direct current stimulation and gait training in PD patients. Eight randomized controlled trials with a total of 183 PD patients were analyzed. Statistically significant improvements were observed only in double support time, both immediately after intervention (MD = 0.04, 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.06, I2 = 0%, P = 0.0003) and at follow-up (MD = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.03, I2 = 0%, P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in gait velocity, stride length, cadence, Time Up and Go test, Freezing of Gait Questionnaire, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39, Berg Balance Scale, Six-Minute Walking Test, or Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part III between the combined tDCS and gait training group and the gait training alone group (P > 0.05 for all outcomes). Heterogeneity across studies was low to moderate (I2 = 0–85%). tDCS combined with gait training compared with gait training alone did not make a statistically significant improvement in efficacy in patients with PD.

Background: Virtual reality (VR) is a rapidly developing technology that has gained significant traction in the treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with stroke. Research on VR-based stroke treatment has garnered increasing attention. Objective: The aim of this study is to present a bibliometric analysis of VR for stroke studies to identify the application status, research hotspots, and emerging trends and guide future scientific research. Methods: We included studies and reviews on the topic of VR-based stroke treatment and rehabilitation from 1999 to 2023 were retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection database. Citespace 6.3.1 and VOSviewer 1.6.20 software was used for the visual analysis of publications, institutions, authors, journals, citations, and Scimago Graphica software was used for the geographic visualization of published countries or regions. Results: Our study analyzed 1171 papers on VR-based stroke rehabilitation published between 1999 and 2023, revealing a gradual increase in annual publications over the past 2 decades, peaking at 154 in 2022. North America and Western Europe were identified as major contributors, with significant input from their institutions, researchers, and publications. The Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation emerged as the leading journal in this field, while Calabrò Rocco Salvatore was recognized as the most prolific author, focusing on the neurophysiological impacts of VR on patients with stroke. Keywords with notable citation bursts, such as “environment,” “trial,” “arm,” and “motor learning,” highlighted the core research themes in this domain. Conclusions: Our study provides valuable insights into the current research hotspots and emerging trends in VR-based stroke treatment and rehabilitation. Current research primarily focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of VR in improving upper limb function and balance in patients with stroke. Future directions are shifting towards integrating VR with rehabilitation techniques, such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy, while advancements in VR technology continue to garner increasing attention.

Introduction Individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) often experience initial hesitation, slowness of movements, decreased balance and impaired standing ability, which can significantly impact their independence. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation are two widely used and promising non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) modalities for treating PD. The supplementary motor area (SMA), associated with motor behaviour and processing, has received increasing attention as a potential stimulation target to alleviate PD-related symptoms. However, the data on NIBS over SMA in PD individuals are inconsistent and has not been synthesised. In this article, we will review the evidence for NIBS over SMA in PD individuals and evaluate its efficacy in improving PD function. Method and analysis Randomised controlled clinical trials comparing the effects of NIBS and sham stimulation on motor function, activities of daily living and participation for people with PD will be included. A detailed computer-aided search of the literature will be performed from inception to February 2023 in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Web of Science (WOS) and The Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Two independent reviewers will screen articles for relevance and methodological validity. The PEDro scale will be used to evaluate the risk of bias of selected studies. Data from included studies will be extracted by two independent reviewers through a customised, preset data extraction sheet. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The study’s findings will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023399945.