SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Precision in practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis of virtual reality efficacy for osteoarthritis-specific total knee arthroplasty rehabilitation.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual reality (VR) had gained traction as an innovative approach for post-total knee arthroplasty (TKA) rehabilitation in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, evidence of its comparative efficacy against conventional methods remained fragmented. This study synthesized data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate VR's impact on pain, functional recovery, and quality of life in KOA patients post-TKA.
methodsA systematic search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to December 2024). RCTs comparing VR-based rehabilitation with standard care in KOA patients post-TKA were included. Data on pain (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS], Numerical Pain Rating Scale [NPRS]), functional outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], Timed Up and Go [TUG], Range of Motion [ROM]), and quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36], EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire [EQ-5D]) were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3, with mean differences (MD) or standardized MD and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity was quantified via the I² statistic.
resultsTen RCTs (588 participants) were analyzed. VR interventions demonstrated transient advantages in WOMAC scores at one month (SMD: -1.40; 95% CI: -2.37 to -0.43; P < 0.01) and 3 months (SMD: -1.14; 95% CI: -2.29 to 0.00; P = 0.05), but no significant benefit was observed at 6 months. TUG performance improved short-term (SMD: -1.10; 95% CI: -2.06 to -0.14; P = 0.03), while ROM showed sustained gains (1-week SMD: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.84-1.92; P < 0.01). Pain outcomes varied: NPRS favored VR, whereas VAS results showed no short-term differences. Quality of life data were inconclusive due to limited reporting. Substantial heterogeneity (I² > 70%) was observed, which was attributed to variability in VR modalities, session duration, and rehabilitation settings.
conclusionVR-based rehabilitation provided short-term improvements in functional mobility and joint flexibility for KOA patients post-TKA, but its long-term benefits remained uncertain. Methodological limitations, including high heterogeneity and inadequate blinding, necessitated cautious interpretation of the findings. Future trials should adopt standardized protocols, integrate gender-stratified analyses, and prioritize long-term follow-ups to optimize VR's clinical utility.
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.