# Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Therapy on Static Postural Control and Dynamic Balance in Stroke Patients: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

## TL;DR

This study finds that virtual reality therapy may improve balance and posture in stroke patients, but results are not fully conclusive due to study limitations.

## Contribution

The paper provides a systematic review and meta-analysis showing VR therapy's potential benefits for postural control and balance in stroke patients.

## Key findings

- VR therapy improved static postural control measures compared to conventional rehabilitation.
- Dynamic balance outcomes favored VR therapy with significant mean differences in BBS and TUG tests.
- High heterogeneity and risk of bias in studies suggest cautious interpretation of results.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) therapy compared with conventional rehabilitation on static postural control and dynamic balance in patients with stroke. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Materials and Methods: RCTs involving adults with stroke who received VR-based interventions, alone or combined with conventional therapy, were included. Outcomes were static postural control measured by center of pressure (COP) and dynamic balance assessed by the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Timed Up-and-Go Test (TUG). Results: Thirty-six RCTs (1118 participants) were analyzed. Pooled estimates favored VR-based interventions for several measures of static postural control, with standardized mean differences ranging from −0.59 to −0.38 (p < 0.05), whereas no clear difference was observed for COP sway speed under eyes-closed conditions (standardized mean difference (SMD) = –0.13, p = 0.43). For dynamic balance outcomes, pooled mean differences favored the VR group compared with conventional rehabilitation (BBS: mean difference (MD) = 3.29, 95% CI 2.76–3.83; TUG: MD = −3.43, 95% CI −4.03 to −2.82; both p < 0.0001). However, substantial heterogeneity and a high risk of bias were observed across several outcomes, which may affect the certainty of these findings. Conclusions: VR-based interventions may offer potential benefits for improving static postural control and dynamic balance in individuals with stroke, particularly when used as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation. Nevertheless, given the substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias among included studies, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further well-designed, large-scale trials are required to confirm the magnitude and clinical relevance of these effects.