Commercial videogames in stroke rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Objective

The aim of this article was to perform a systematic review of all studies (both observational and experimental) wherein commercial video games were used in comprehensive rehabilitation (both physical and cognitive areas) after stroke.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed, and all observational and experimental studies that met at least six PEDro scale criteria were included. A total of 50 studies were included in the Meta-Analysis. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and the bias with JAMOVI.

Results

In observational studies, results favored intervention with video games in terms of functionality such as Fulg–Meyer Assessment scores [standard mean difference (SMD) = −0.45; 95% CI = −0.74 to −0.15; p = .94; I2 = 0%)] and when measured in the upper limbs using the Wolf Motor Function Test (SMD = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.74; p = .47; I2 = 0%). Other results showed heterogeneity. In the experimental group, most results tended to favor the experimental group and showed homogeneity, but they were not significant. Fail Safe N was calculated, and the results were not biased.

Conclusions

Results tend to favor intervention with commercial video games, but the heterogeneity of the measuring instruments and small sample size do not allow for significant results to be obtained. Future research should provide the number of participants, mean, and standard deviation to facilitate future meta-analyses. Commercial video games appear to be a feasible tool in physical and cognitive stroke rehabilitation

KEYWORDS:

• Stroke rehabilitation
• commercial video games
• physical
• cognition
• systematic review
• meta-analysis

List of abbreviations

Table

Acknowledgments

Thanks to all the authors who replied to my email and collaborated sending me the data to write this article.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

IUM: Systematic Review, data analysis and writing the manuscript.

II: Supervise the Review, the data analysis, and the writing. Also contributed to the redaction of part of the results and discussion.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.