Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41455908›Full record

Trial reportBMC neurology2025

Immersive versus non-immersive virtual reality in improving upper limb function among individuals with subacute hemiplegia: a randomized controlled trial.

Athira George, Sathees Kumar Durairaj, Praveen Kumar Kandakurti, Animesh Hazari

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06615141 (Immersive Versus Non-immersive Virtual Reality in Enhancing Upper Limb Functions Among Individuals With Subacute Stage Hemiplegia - A Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06615141 narecruitingnot on this map

Immersive Versus Non-immersive Virtual Reality in Enhancing Upper Limb Functions Among Individuals With Subacute Stage Hemiplegia - A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorGulf Medical UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled30ConditionsHemiplegia and/or Hemiparesis Following StrokeArmsOculus Quest 3, Neofect Smartboard and Tyromotion Myro
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Athira GeorgeDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.
Sathees Kumar DurairajDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates. satheeskumar@gmu.ac.ae.
Praveen Kumar KandakurtiDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.
Animesh HazariDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates. dr.animesh@gmu.ac.ae.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual reality (VR) has emerged as a promising tool in neurorehabilitation to improve motor function in individuals with hemiplegia. VR applications are typically categorized into immersive and non-immersive types, both of which have demonstrated efficacy in enhancing upper limb function. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (IMVR) and non-immersive virtual reality (NIVR) therapies in improving upper limb motor function in individuals with subacute hemiplegia.

methodsThis single-blinded randomized controlled trial included 30 participants (aged 25-40 years, both male and female) with subacute hemiplegia. Individuals with pre-existing musculoskeletal or neurological conditions affecting the upper limb, severe motion sickness, photosensitivity, or perceptual deficits were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: Both groups initially received conventional physiotherapy, following which the immersive VR and non-immersive VR interventions were administered to the respective group. Each session lasted 60 min, with three sessions per week for six weeks. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-intervention (6 weeks), and follow-up (6 months) using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL). The System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) were used to evaluate the safety and usability of both VR methods.

resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the groups. SUS and UEQ scores also showed no significant differences in user experience. However, IMVR demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FMA, WMFT, and SS-QOL scores compared to NIVR at both post-test and follow-up (p < 0.05).

conclusionBoth immersive and non-immersive VR therapies were effective in enhancing upper limb motor function and quality of life among individuals with subacute hemiplegia. However, IMVR showed greater clinical significance in improving motor function and quality of life. Future research should explore the integration of VR across different stroke stages and focus on developing simple, task-specific games to further support rehabilitation.

trial registrationThis clinical trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov under the trial ID NCT06615141 on September 26, 2024.

Indexed as

HemiplegiaStroke RehabilitationUpper ExtremityVirtual RealityVirtual Reality Exposure TherapyAdultFemaleHumansMaleSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeHealth-related quality of lifeImmersiveNon-immersivePhysical therapy modalitiesStroke rehabilitationUpper extremityVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID41455908
PMCPMC12860157

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.