Skip to main content

Table 2 Main characteristics in studies included in the meta-analysis

From: Virtual reality-based therapy improves balance and reduces fear of falling in patients with multiple sclerosis. a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

 

Virtual reality group

Control group

Comparison

Sample characteristics

VRBT characteristics

Sample characteristics

Authorship and publication date

Design

Country

N

Ni

Age

EDSS

Diag. Time

Type

Ses

Week

Ses/week

Min

Nc

Age

EDSS

Diag. Time

Type control

Brichetto et al. 2013

Pilot RCT

Italy

36

18

40.7

3.9

11.2

niVRBT

12

4

3

60

18

43.2

4.3

12.3

CT

VRBT vs CT

Calabrò et al. 2017

Single-blind RCT

Italy

40

20

44

4.4

11

niVRBT

40

8

5

40

20

41

4.75

10

RAGT

VRBT + RAGT vs RAGT

Eftekharsadat et al. 2015

Single-blind RCT

Iran

30

15

33.4

–

5.8

niVRBT

24

12

2

20

15

37

–

8.3

UC

VRBT vs UC

Kalron et al. 2016

Pilot RCT

Israel

30

15

47.3

4.5

11.6

niVRBT

18

6

2

30

15

43.9

3.9

10.4

CT

VRBT vs CT

Khalil et al. 2019

Single-blind RCT

Jordan

32

16

39.8

2.9

8.4

niVRBT

12

6

2

–

16

34.8

3.1

10.4

CT

VRBT vs CT

Lozano-Quilis et al. 2014

Single-blind RCT

Spain

11

6

48.3

–

14

niVRBT

10

10

1

60

5

40.6

–

4.7

CT

VRBT + CT vs CT

Maggio et al. 2020

Single-blind RCT

Italy

60

30

51.9

–

–

Semi-iVRBT

24

8

3

60

30

48.2

–

–

CT

VRBT + CT vs CT

Molhemi et al. 2021

Single-blind RCT

Iran

39

19

36.8

4.8

7.7

niVRBT

18

6

3

30

20

41.6

4.7

11.2

CT

VRBT vs CT

Munari et al. 2020

Pilot RCT

Italy

15

8

57

5.4

17.7

niVRBT

12

6

2

40

7

51.7

5

13.9

RAGT

VRBT + RAGT vs RAGT

Nilsagard et al. 2012

Multi-centre RCT

Sweden

80

41

50

-

12.5

niVRBT

12

6

2

30

39

49.4

–

12.2

UC

VRBT vs UC

Ortiz-Gutiérrez et al. 2013

Single-blind RCT

Spain

47

24

36

3.95

9.7

niVRBT

40

10

4

20

23

42.7

3.8

10.8

CT

VRBT vs CT

Ozkul et al. 2020

Single-blind RCT

Turkey

39

13

29

1

4

iVRBT

16

8

2

20

13

34

1

4

CT

VRBT vs CT

13

34

2

4

UC

VRBT vs UC

Peruzzi et al. 2016

Single-blind RCT

Italy

25

14

43.6

4.1

11.8

niVRBT

18

6

3

30

11

42

3.5

12.4

RAGT

VRBT + RAGT vs RAGT

Prosperini et al. 2013

Cross-over RCT

Italy

36

18

35.3

3

12.2

niVRBT

60

12

5

30

18

37.1

3.5

9.3

UC

VRBT vs UC

18

37.1

3.5

9.3

niVRBT

60

12

5

30

18

35.3

3

12.2

UC

VRBT vs UC

Robinson et al. 2015

Prospective RCT

UK

51

20

52.6

–

–

niVRBT

8

4

2

40–60

16

53.9

–

–

CT

VRBT vs CT

15

51.9

–

–

UC

VRBT vs UC

Thomas et al. 2017

Single-blind RCT

UK

30

15

50.9

–

–

niVRBT

–

–

–

–

15

47.6

–

–

CT

VRBT + CT vs CT

Tóllar et al. 2019

Single-blind RCT

Hungary

50

14

48.2

5

12.1

niVRBT

25

5

5

60

14

46.9

5

13.6

CT

VRBT vs CT

12

47

5

13.1

UC

VRBT vs UC

Tuba-Ozdogar et al. 2020

Single-blind RCT

Turkey

57

20

39.2

2.7

7.5

niVRBT

8

8

1

45

17

43.6

2.1

6.4

CT

VRBT vs CT

20

37.9

2.3

5.9

UC

VRBT vs UC

Yazgan et al. 2020

Single-blind RCT

Turkey

42

15

47.4

4.16

12.06

niVRBT

16

8

2

60

12

43.1

3.8

14.9

CT

VRBT vs CT

15

40.6

4

11

UC

VRBT vs UC

  1. N total sample size in each study, Ni sample size in intervention group, EDSS Kurtzke’s Expanded Disability Status Scale, Diag. Time time since diagnosis in years, Ses number of sessions, Min minutes, Nc sample size in control group, RCT randomized controlled trial, niVRBT non-immersive virtual reality-based therapy, Semi-iVRBT semi-immersive virtual reality-based therapy, iVRBT immersive virtual reality-based therapy, CT conventional therapy, UC usual care or simple observation, RAGT Robotic Assisted Gait Training, UK United Kingdom