ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive and Physical Interventions in Cognitive Impairment: A Network Meta-Analysis of Immersion Level Effects.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an innovative platform for delivering cognitive and physical training to individuals with cognitive impairment. However, the differential effectiveness of fully immersive versus partially immersive VR interventions remains unclear. This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how immersion level influences cognitive, motor, and functional outcomes in neurodegenerative populations. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to October 2025 identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving 1382 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. Interventions were categorized into four groups: (1) fully immersive VR (head-mounted displays), (2) partially immersive VR (screen-based or motion-capture systems), (3) active control (traditional cognitive or physical training), and (4) passive control (usual care or health education). Outcomes included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making Test (TMT), Digit Span Test (DST), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 18.0. Fully immersive VR significantly improved global cognition compared to passive control (MMSE: SMD = 0.51, 95% CI [0.06, 0.96]), while partially immersive VR showed superior effects on executive function versus active control (TMT-B: SMD = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.62, -0.93]) and on motor function (TUG: SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.11, -0.08]). In MoCA performance, both VR modalities outperformed traditional interventions (SUCRA: fully immersive = 76.0%; partially immersive = 84.8%). SUCRA rankings suggest that fully immersive VR is optimal for memory and foundational cognition (81.7%), whereas partially immersive VR performs best for executive function (98.9%). These findings indicate that the efficacy of VR-based cognitive or physical-cognitive interventions is modulated by immersion level. Tailoring VR modality to specific cognitive domains may optimize rehabilitation outcomes in MCI and dementia care.
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.