Trial reportBMJ open2026
Feasibility and efficacy of virtual reality rehabilitation for upper extremity impairment in ischaemic stroke patients: an open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2026. 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of a non-immersive virtual reality (VR) system on upper extremity (UE) recovery in ischaemic stroke patients in comparison to a conventional physiotherapy.
designAn open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial randomly assigned the participants to two groups, VR intervention or conventional physiotherapy.
settingTwo tertiary stroke care centres in South India participated in the study.
participantsSixty first-ever ischaemic stroke patients (1-6 months of stroke onset) having spasticity grades of 1 or 1+ as per Modified Ashworth scale and Brunnstrom recovery stages of 3, 4 or 5 in the UE were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
interventionHigh-intensity non-immersive VR-based comprehensive rehabilitation gaming system with a duration of 12 weeks (3 days/week) was compared with equally intensive conventional physiotherapy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The feasibility outcome was the compliance with the treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was the improvement in the motor function assessed by the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) and Wolf motor function test (WMFT). The secondary outcomes included the performance in activities of daily living by the Barthel index (BI) and the quality of life by the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36).
resultsThe treatment compliance was similar in two groups (p=0.19). Both groups improved in motor performance, activities of daily living and quality of life. However, there were no significant differences in the FMA (p=0.58), WMFT (functional ability scale, p=0.33; performance time, p=0.44), BI (p=0.84) and SF-36 (physical, p=0.87; mental, p=0.99) scores between the groups.
conclusionsThe non-immersive VR system was feasible, effective and safe; however, it was not found to be superior to conventional physiotherapy. The trial was stopped early and did not reach its proposed sample size and hence, the findings are to be interpreted cautiously. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trial registry India: CTRI/2021/11/038339 (https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=NTc1OTI=&Enc=&userName=CTRI/2021/11/038339).
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.