SynthesisPloS one2026
Effects of virtual reality training on racket sports performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual reality (VR) interventions are increasingly used in racket sports, and quantitative evidence is emerging. PURPOSE: To synthesise controlled trials examining the effects of VR-based training on racket sports performance outcomes.
methodsA systematic search of five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO) up to 15 August 2025 was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Eligible studies were controlled trials (randomised or non-randomised) comparing VR-based training (immersive or exergaming) with non-VR controls in tennis or table tennis players. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2 (randomised) and ROBINS-I (non-randomised). Standardised mean differences (Hedges' g) were pooled using a random-effects model with Paule-Mandel τ² and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) adjustment. The protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD420251132325).
resultsSix controlled trials(total N = 426; analysed N = 401) were included. The pooled meta-analysis indicated a moderate overall effect favouring VR (Hedges' g = 0.78; HKSJ 95% CI [0.41, 1.15]), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 52%). The 95% prediction interval was [-0.01, 1.57], which spans the null effect, indicating that in some future populations or settings VR training may not yield a meaningful performance advantage. One trial investigated perceptual-cognitive VR training (Anguera et al., 2025), showing a substantial but imprecise effect (g = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.67]). As only a single study was available, this evidence is presented descriptively rather than meta-analytically. A subgroup examination of five physically engaging VR interventions found a similarly large effect (*g* = 0.78, 95% CI [0.31, 1.25]) despite considerable heterogeneity (I² = 62%).
conclusionAccording to six controlled trials, VR training was associated with average performance enhancements in racket sports; however, the 95% prediction interval [-0.01, 1.57] encompasses the null effect, indicating that a future study could plausibly show no benefit. Due to the limited evidence base (k = 6), significant heterogeneity (I² = 52%), and considerable statistical uncertainty, the existing evidence does not allow for definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of VR. The current findings should be regarded as a preliminary signal rather than confirmation of effectiveness. Larger, more methodologically robust RCTs with standardised outcomes are needed before definitive recommendations can be made.
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.