EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Searches were conducted with the Web of Science, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed databases from inception up to September 2020. Articles that employed virtual reality in the rehabilitation of individual with upper limb loss were included in the research if it is written in English, the keyword exists in the title and abstract; it uses visual feedback in nonimmersive, semi-immersive, or fully immersive virtual environments. Data extraction was carried out by two independent researchers. The study was drafted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 38 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were published between 2010 and 2020. Thirty-nine percent of the studies (N.=15), originates from North America; 55% of the studies (N.=21), were publicly funded; 61% of the studies (N.=24), was without disclosure of conflict of interest; 82% of the studies (N.=31), were cited in other studies. All the studies were published in journals and conference proceedings. Sixty-six percent of the studies (N.=25) has come out with positive outcome. The design studies were mostly case reports, case series, and poorly designed cohort studies that made up 55% (N.=21) of all the studies cited here.
CONCLUSIONS: The research conducted on the use of virtual reality in individual with upper limb loss rehabilitation is of very low quality. The improvements to the research protocol are much needed. It is not necessary to develop new devices, but rather to assess existing devices with well-conducted randomized controlled trials.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL Plus for articles published from their date of inception to June 2021. RCTs investigating the efficacy or safety of VNS on post-stroke recovery were included. The outcomes were upper limb sensorimotor function, health-related quality of life, level of independence, cardiovascular effects, and adverse events. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, while the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs (n = 236 subjects) met the eligibility criteria. Upper limb sensorimotor function, assessed by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), improved at day 1 (n = 4 RCTs; standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-1.66) and day 90 post-intervention (n = 3 RCTs; SMD 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.98; moderate certainty of evidence) but not at day 30 follow-up (n = 2 RCTs; SMD 1.54; 95% CI: -0.39 to 3.46). Clinically significant upper limb sensorimotor function recovery, as defined by ≥6 points increase in FMA-UE, was significantly higher at day 1 (n = 2 RCTs; risk ratio [RR] 2.01; 95% CI: 1.02-3.94) and day 90 post-intervention (n = 2 RCTs; RR 2.14; 95% CI: 1.32-3.45; moderate certainty of the evidence). The between-group effect sizes for upper limb sensorimotor function recovery was medium to large (Hedges' g 0.535-2.659). While the level of independence improved with VNS, its impact on health-related quality of life remains unclear as this was only studied in two trials with mixed results. Generally, adverse events reported were mild and self-limiting.
CONCLUSION: VNS may be an effective and safe adjunct to standard rehabilitation for post-stroke recovery; however, its clinical significance and long-term efficacy and safety remain unclear.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of published articles in electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, Medline (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, using the following search terms: "stroke"; "upper extremity"; "Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy"; and "Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation." The search included published studies, conferences, and presentations. The article selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation will be conducted independently by 2 reviewers. The 3rd and 4th reviewers will assist in resolving any disagreements that may arise between the 2 reviewers. The risk of bias in the included studies will be assessed using the PEDro scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis will be performed based on the characteristics of the included articles, including the risk of bias (if sufficient information is available).
RESULTS: This review summarizes the available evidence and could assist therapists in choosing the best treatment for poststroke upper extremity dysfunction.
CONCLUSION: This study will provide the available evidence on the effectiveness of CIMT and NMES on upper extremity function in patients with stroke.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because the review will be based on publicly available literature. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and updates will be made depending on whether sufficient additional evidence modifies the conclusions of the review. Any changes made to the methods throughout the review will be stated in the article.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023415645.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This scoping review was reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies were identified through searches of five databases: Cochrane, Scopus, ProQuest, MEDLINE, and Web of Science (WoS).
RESULTS: Of the 294 articles initially identified, 20 studies were included and analysed thematically after removing duplicates. The majority of these assessments measure body function and structure such as grip and pinch strength while the rest are measuring the activity and participation domain. Most of the hand assessments were performancebased measurements. It is suggestible to employ both types of assessments to obtain a comprehensive understanding of hand conditions in individuals with DM. While some validated hand assessments were identified, only the Duruöz Hand Index (DHI) has been validated as a reliable tool specifically for evaluating hand function in individuals with DM.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to evaluate the measurement properties of existing instruments for assessing the hand function in individuals with DM, or to develop hand assessments specifically for the DM population. This scoping review was forging a new path, by discovering diabetes care through the utilisation of hand assessments.