ReviewNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2025
Efficacy Evaluation of Virtual Reality in Cognitive and Psychological Rehabilitation After Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality technology, as an emerging intervention method, has garnered widespread attention in recent years for the rehabilitation of cognitive and psychological functions in patients with brain injuries. However, systematic evidence regarding its efficacy remains inconsistent. This study aims to evaluate the comprehensive effects of VR intervention in improving cognitive function, alleviating depressive symptoms, and enhancing self-efficacy in patients with brain injuries through a meta-analysis. Methods: This study conducted literature search and screening in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The literature search databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Library, and OVID. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies were included, and the assessment metrics included MoCA, FAB, WEIGL Test, TMT-BA, HRS-D, and self-efficacy scores. The pooled analysis of effect sizes was performed using RevMan 5.4, with the I² statistic employed to assess heterogeneity. Either a fixed-effect or random-effects model was selected based on the observed heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias testing were subsequently conducted. Results: This Meta-analysis synthesised nine studies with a total of 279 brain-injured patients to assess the effect of virtual reality intervention. The experimental group showed a statistically significant improvement in MoCA scores compared to the control group (P < 0.00001). FAB score analysis also showed a statistically significant improvement (P = 0.0007). The results of the combined analysis of the WEIGL Test scores combined analysis showed a mean difference of 2.39 (P < 0.00001), and a decrease in HRS-D scores also indicated that the VR intervention may be beneficial in alleviating depressive symptoms (P = 0.02). However, improvements in TMT-BA scores (P = 0.10) and self-efficacy scores (P = 0.43) did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The VR intervention demonstrated potential benefits in improving cognitive functioning and alleviating depressive symptoms in brain-injured patients, but the effect on self-efficacy was not significant. Although some studies showed high heterogeneity, the overall results support the value of VR in brain injury rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.