SynthesisPeerJ2026
The influence of virtual reality technology on upper limb motor function in subacute stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) in upper limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke, including the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity Scale (FMA-UE), Box and Block Test (BBT), and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the optimal intervention parameters for VR treatment. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were thoroughly searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of VR for the rehabilitation of upper limb dysfunction in post-stroke hemiplegic patients until December 2025. Eligible studies were analyzed via RevMan 5.3 statistical software, with study quality assessed by the AOS scoring system, and data analysis performed using Stata 15. Results: Fifteen studies were encompassed, comprising 612 cases overall, with 318 cases in the experimental group and 294 cases in the control group. VR rehabilitation was superior to traditional rehabilitation in FMA-UE score (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI [0.30-1.05], Conclusion: VR may have advantages in promoting FMA-UE scores in the upper limbs of patients with subacute stroke. VR training with more than 30 minutes per session, more than 4 days per week, and a total intervention time of more than 3 weeks may be more conducive to the recovery of upper limb function (ULF) in subacute stroke. However, the efficacy of VR in improving fine motor skills and dexterity of the hand, assessed by the BBT and ARAT, remains to be elucidated. Although these findings are informative, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution in consideration of the study's limitations. Registry number: CRD42025610757.
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.