Cited by 257Cerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryChildren's Physical and Motor Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 75 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Open access

Abstract

Background: Researchers recently investigated the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) in helping children with cerebral palsy (CP) to improve motor function. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a meta-analytic method to examine the effectiveness of VR in children with CP was thus needed. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to update the current evidence about VR by systematically examining the research literature. Data Sources: A systematic literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Web of Science up to December 2016 was conducted. Study Selection: Studies with an RCT design, children with CP, comparisons of VR with other interventions, and movement-related outcomes were included. Data Extraction: A template was created to systematically code the demographic, methodological, and miscellaneous variables of each RCT. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to evaluate the study quality. Effect size was computed and combined using meta-analysis software. Moderator analyses were also used to explain the heterogeneity of the effect sizes in all RCTs. Data Synthesis: . The literature search yielded 19 RCT studies with fair to good methodological quality. Overall, VR provided a large effect size (d = 0.861) when compared with other interventions. A large effect of VR on arm function (d = 0.835) and postural control (d = 1.003) and a medium effect on ambulation (d = 0.755) were also found. Only the VR type affected the overall VR effect: an engineer-built system was more effective than a commercial system. Limitations: The RCTs included in this study were of fair to good quality, had a high level of heterogeneity and small sample sizes, and used various intervention protocols. Conclusions: Then compared with other interventions, VR seems to be an effective intervention for improving motor function in children with CP.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies (20 RCTs; 504 children with CP) found that VR intervention produced a strong overall effect on motor function compared with conventional therapy or controls (d = 0.861; 95% CI = 0.51–1.22). Effects were large for activity and postural control, medium for body structure/function, and small for participation, with engineer-built VR systems outperforming commercial systems.

Key findings

  • Across all studies, VR showed a strong effect (d = 0.861; 95% CI = 0.51–1.22), with large heterogeneity (I² = 70%; Q = 60.36; P < .000001). Trim-and-fill correction shifted the overall effect size from 0.861 to 0.724; excluding 4 studies with effect sizes larger than 2.000 shifted it from 0.861 to 0.510.
  • By ICF component: body structure and function d = 0.672 (8 studies; 95% CI = 0.364–0.980), activity d = 0.899 (19 studies; 95% CI = 0.530–1.267), and participation d = 0.408 (3 studies; 95% CI = 0.078–0.738).
  • By motor function: arm function d = 0.835 (13 RCTs; 95% CI = 0.388–1.282), ambulation d = 0.755 (8 studies; 95% CI = 0.348–1.161), and postural control d = 1.003 (10 studies; 95% CI = 0.503–1.502).
  • VR system was a significant moderator overall (P = .05): engineer-built systems d = 1.572 versus commercially available systems d = 0.628. For arm function, VR system, children’s age, and daily dosage were significant (P = .03, P = .01, P = .04); for ambulation, CP type, age, and PEDro score were significant (P = .02, P = .037, P = .0002); for postural control, no moderators reached significance.

Methods

  • PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis; databases searched in December 2016 were PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, plus manual reference-list searching. Inclusion criteria were children with CP aged birth to 21 years, RCT or randomized cross-over design, comparison of VR with conventional therapy or control, motor-function outcomes, and English or Chinese language.
  • From 418 nonoverlapping articles, 31 RCTs were retrieved for full evaluation; 19 studies (20 RCTs) with 504 participants, published 2002–2016, were included. Quality was assessed with the PEDro scale; scores ranged from 4 to 8, indicating fair to good quality.
  • Effect sizes were calculated as Cohen d, combined with a random-effects model, classified by the ICF model and by motor function (arm function, ambulation, postural control), and examined with subgroup/meta-regression analyses for 10 potential moderators. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Duval-Tweedie trim-and-fill correction.

Limitations

  • Stated: the included RCTs were fair to good in quality, with high heterogeneity and various intervention protocols; sample sizes in each RCT were relatively small; a large-scale, multi-site RCT with a more homogenous participant group of similar age and diagnosis is needed.
  • Stated/evident: publication bias was assessed and minor asymmetry was noted in the overall and arm-function analyses, with trim-and-fill corrections reducing effect sizes; some subgroup analyses had few studies (participation, 3 studies; ambulation, 8 studies; postural control, 10 studies), and the paper notes that nonsignificant dosage findings in ambulation and postural control may be due to too few studies.
  • Evident from the text: the search was limited to December 2016 and to English or Chinese publications; several RCTs were combined or excluded because of insufficient data, and PEDro scores ranged from 4 to 8, indicating fair-to-good but not excellent methodological quality.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ptj/pzx107

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

49 Own result · 46 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 8 Own method · 8 No basis given

Verify all 75 references — free account

Show all 63 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 28
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 41
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
60 of 60
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    An engineer-built VR system costs much more than a commercial system ($15,000 versus $150).

    “However, the cost of purchasing an engineer-built VR system might be much higher than a commercially available system ($15,000 versus $150).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    VR can motivate children to participate in the intervention.

    “With regard to clinical implications, VR can motivate children to participate in the intervention.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 87 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017, Cerebral Palsy
  2. Howick, 2017, The 2011 Oxford CEBM levels of evidence: introductory document
  3. Cooper, 1994, eds
  4. Sharan, 2012, Virtual reality based therapy for post operative rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy, Work, 41, 3612, 10.3233/wor-2012-0667-3612 · DOI · Paper page
  5. The NPD Group, Inc, 2017, Kids ages 2-to-14 consume digital content on a device between three and seven times per month

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–252 of 252

Metadata

Authors
Chen, Y., Fanchiang, H. D., & Howard, A.
Affiliations
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • National Taiwan Sport University (TW)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Yuping
Venue
Physical Therapy
Published
2017-10-23
Volume
98
Issue
1
Pages
63-77
ISSN
  • 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-6724
OpenAlex
W2771836772
Cited by
257
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7
FWCI
1.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000454)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Children's Physical and Motor Development
Keywords
virtual reality, cerebral palsy, children, motor function, upper limb function, postural control, ambulation, rehabilitation therapy
MeSH terms
Virtual Reality, Adolescent, Cerebral Palsy, Child, Child, Preschool, Postural Balance, Humans, Movement, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review