Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Immersive virtual reality upper-limb exercises in people with Parkinson's disease: an observer-blinded randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Improvement Effects of Virtual Reality-Assisted Exercise Training on Motor and Psychiatric Symptoms in Patients With Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of virtual reality on exercise execution in people with Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUpper-limb dysfunction is common in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Immersive virtual reality (iVR) offers an engaging rehabilitation approach, but its effectiveness versus conventional therapy remains unclear. This bi-centre observer-blinded randomised controlled trial compared iVR- and conventional upper-limb training (CON-ULT) on motor and non-motor outcomes in people with PD.
methodsParticipants were randomised (1:1) to iVR upper-limb training (iVR-ULT) or CON-ULT for 30 min, 4 times/week, over 4 weeks of inpatient rehabilitation. Primary outcomes were arm function (Action Research Arm Test) and hand function (Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test) analysed by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes included dexterity, finger coordination, disease severity, motivation, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adherence, acceptability, and iVR system usability (System Usability Scale, SUS). Outcomes were assessed pre- and post-intervention by blinded therapists.
resultsOf 97 patients screened, 58 were randomised: 29 to iVR-ULT and 29 to CON-ULT. No group-by-time interaction effects were observed in arm function. Both groups showed improved arm function (iVR-ULT: right, effect size r = 0.402, p = 0.034; left, r = 0.437, p = 0.021; CON-ULT: right, r = 0.640, p = 0.001; left, r = 0.567, p = 0.002; medium-to-large effects). For hand function, significant changes were found only after CON-ULT (right: r = 0.656, p = 0.0004; left, r = 0.628, p = 0.0007), reflecting a small between-group effect (r = 0.275, p = 0.038). For secondary outcomes, no group-by-time interaction effects were found. Across time, both groups improved in gross and fine dexterity (medium-to-large effects). Right-hand motor speed and coordination (Finger Tapping Test) improved significantly in only the iVR-ULT group (r = 0.516, p = 0.0064), while left-hand performance improved in both groups. Disease severity improved modestly in both groups (iVR-ULT: r = 0.431, p = 0.023; CON-ULT: r = 0.387, p = 0.037; medium effects), while Hoehn & Yahr stage remained stable. HRQoL analyses suggested changes in activities of daily living-related (r = 0.494, p = 0.009) and cognition-related domains (r = 0.391, p = 0.039) after iVR-ULT, stigma after CON-ULT (r = 0.386, p = 0.038) and emotional well-being after both interventions (r = 0.447, p = 0.018; r = 0.406, p = 0.029), with low-to-medium effect sizes. Adherence was high (median 16/16 sessions), acceptability ratings favourable (median 1–2/5), and device usability rated as good (median SUS 72.5).
conclusionsBoth interventions produced within-group improvements across several outcomes, though between-group differences were limited. iVR-ULT appears feasible, acceptable, and potentially beneficial for motor function, warranting further evaluation in larger trials.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00034193. Date of registration: 16.05.2024.
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.