Skip to main content

Table 1 Main clinical and technological features in literature review of VR-assisted rehabilitation for Upper Limb Therapy in children with neuromotor impairments

From: Immersive Virtual Environments and Wearable Haptic Devices in rehabilitation of children with neuromotor impairments: a single-blind randomized controlled crossover pilot study

References

Participants (design)

Intensity

Intervention

Technology

Achievements

Chiu et al. [6]

62 CP (AB)

6 ses

VR vs CONV

Commercially available

No effects

Hammond et al. [7]

28 DCD (AB)

12 ses

VR vs CONV

Commercially available

No effects

Zoccolillo et al. [8]

22 CP (AB)

16 ses

VR vs CONV

Commercially available

Therapy effects

Shin et al. [9]

16 CP (AB)

16 ses

VR vs CONV

Commercially available

Period effect

Gilleaux et al. [10]

16 CP (AB)

40 ses

VR + PT + OT vs PT + OT

Laboratory

Period \(\times\) Group effect

Howie et al. [11]

21 DCD (ABBA)

16 weeks

VR - CONV vs CONV - VR

Commercially available

No effects

Preston et al. [12]

15 CP (AB)

6 weeks

VR + CONV vs CONV

Laboratory

No effects

Sakzewski et al. [13]

58 ABI (AB)

120 ses

VR vs CONV

Commercially available

No effects

Bedair et al. [14]

40 CP (AB)

96 ses

VR + PT vs CONV

Commercially available

Therapy effects

Sajan et al. [15]

20 CP (AB)

18 ses

VR vs CONV

Commercially available

Therapy effects

Kassee et al. [16]

6 CP (AB)

6 weeks

VR vs PT

Commercially available

No effects

El Shamy [17]

30 CP (AB)

36 ses

VR vs CONV

Laboratory

Therapy effects

Cavalcante Neto et al. [18]

32 DCD

8 ses

VR vs CONV

Commercially available

Therapy effects

Tarakci et al. [19]

30 CP + 43 JIA + 19 BPBI (AB)

24 ses

LMC - VR vs CONV

Commercially available

Period effects