Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33594443›Full record

Trial reportPhysical therapy2021

Effect of Virtual Reality Gait Training on Participation in Survivors of Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Ilona J M de Rooij, Ingrid G L van de Port, Michiel Punt, Pim J M Abbink-van Moorsel, Michiel Kortsmit, Ruben P A van Eijk, Johanna M A Visser-Meily, Jan-Willem G Meijer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Physical therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05773560 (Investigation of the Influence of Virtual Reality on the Postoperative Period After Major Amputation.), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05773560 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Investigation of the Influence of Virtual Reality on the Postoperative Period After Major Amputation.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital ErlangenRan2022 to 2024Enrolled20ConditionsAmputation, Lower Limb, Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily LivingArmsvirtual reality rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Quality of life measures for people following stroke: a structured content review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ilona J M de RooijRevant Rehabilitation Centres, Breda, the Netherlands.
Ingrid G L van de PortRevant Rehabilitation Centres, Breda, the Netherlands.
Michiel PuntResearch Group Lifestyle and Health, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Pim J M Abbink-van MoorselRevant Rehabilitation Centres, Breda, the Netherlands.
Michiel KortsmitRevant Rehabilitation Centres, Breda, the Netherlands.
Ruben P A van EijkDepartment of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Johanna M A Visser-MeilyCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jan-Willem G MeijerRevant Rehabilitation Centres, Breda, the Netherlands.
Revant (Netherlands) · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NLCancer Genomics Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAfter stroke, people experience difficulties with walking that lead to restrictions in participation in daily life. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of virtual reality gait training (VRT) compared to non-virtual reality gait training (non-VRT) on participation in community-living people after stroke.

methodsIn this assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel groups, people were included between 2 weeks and 6 months after stroke and randomly assigned to the VRT group or non-VRT group. Participants assigned to the VRT group received training on the Gait Real-time Analysis Interactive Lab (GRAIL), and participants assigned to the non-VRT group received treadmill training and functional gait exercises without virtual reality. Both training interventions consisted of 12 30-minute sessions during 6 weeks. The primary outcome was participation measured with the restrictions subscale of the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation (USER-P) 3 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective physical functioning, functional mobility, walking ability, dynamic balance, walking activity, fatigue, anxiety and depression, falls efficacy, and quality of life.

resultsTwenty-eight participants were randomly assigned to the VRT group and 27 to the non-VRT group, of whom 25 and 22 attended 75% or more of the training sessions, respectively. No significant differences between the groups were found over time for the USER-P restrictions subscale (1.23; 95% CI = -0.76 to 3.23) or secondary outcome measures. Patients' experiences with VRT were positive, and no serious adverse events were related to the interventions.

conclusionsThe effect of VRT was not statistically different from non-VRT in improving participation in community-living people after stroke. IMPACT: Although outcomes were not statistically different, treadmill-based VRT was a safe and well-tolerated intervention that was positively rated by people after stroke. VR training might, therefore, be a valuable addition to stroke rehabilitation. LAY SUMMARY: VRT is feasible and was positively experienced by people after stroke. However, VRT was not more effective than non-VRT for improving walking ability and participation after stroke.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceVirtual RealityAgedFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedStroke RehabilitationGaitGait TrainingParticipationRehabilitation, StrokeVirtual Reality

Identifiers

PMID33594443
PMCPMC8122468
OpenAlexW3130484322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.