Abstract
Background/Objectives: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a neurological disorder that affects movement and posture. Physical activity (PA) is safe and crucial for healthy development; however, this population faces barriers that hinder its implementation. Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging and promising technology that promotes PA in young people with CP. This work aims to compile and analyze the current scientific literature on physical exercise (PE) programs using VR in children and adolescents with CP through a PRISMA systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was conducted and reported based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses) statement. The search was conducted through the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases on 1st September 2024. Studies based on PA interventions using VR in children and adolescents with CP were selected. Results: A total of 24 experimental research articles were selected for this review. The studies included comprise a total sample of 616 participants between 4 and 18 years old. The studies involved a diverse range of interventions, from brief sessions to intensive training. The results consistently demonstrated improvements in motor control, muscle strength, aerobic capacity, and overall participation in daily activities. Conclusions: The results highlight that the use of VR for PE programs has numerous benefits such as increased enjoyment, facilitation of motor learning, and acquisition of functional skills. PE through VR in children and adolescents with CP represents a promising tool; more scientific and practical evidence is needed to confirm its long-term effectiveness.
1. Introduction
Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of motor disability in pediatric patients, with an estimated prevalence of 2 to 3 per 1000 live births [1]. It is defined as a permanent neurological disorder that primarily affects movement and posture and is characterized as non-progressive [2,3]. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) [4], spastic CP, the most common type, is characterized by increased muscle stiffness and awkward movements, often affecting specific body parts; hemiplegic CP impacts one side of the body, such as an arm and leg on the same side; ataxic CP primarily affects balance and coordination, leading to shaky movements and difficulty with precise tasks; dyskinetic CP involves uncontrolled, involuntary movements, including twisting and repetitive motions; finally, mixed CP combines symptoms from more than one type, reflecting a combination of motor impairments. Individuals with CP present a wide range of motor symptoms, such as a lack of muscle coordination, excessive rigidity or flaccidity, tremors, or involuntary movements in addition to various non-motor manifestations, including epilepsy, sensory and cognitive deficits, language disorders, and sleep disturbances [5,6].
Physical exercise (PE) is safe and beneficial for individuals with CP [7], and specific recommendations for physical activity (PA) and exercise have been developed for this population [8]. PE can improve cardiorespiratory endurance and muscle strength and reduce sedentary behavior in individuals with CP [8]. However, several physiological, psychological, social, and macro-environmental factors act as barriers to the inclusion and participation of children and adolescents with CP in PA and/or sports [9,10]. Only 17.6% of individuals with CP meet PA recommendations, with 58% displaying sedentary behavior and 76.7% participating in PE for rehabilitation or treatment purposes, although interest in exercise tends to decline with age [11]. To counteract this, it is recommended to incorporate games and strategies to overcome these barriers [11].
Currently, virtual reality (VR) exercise has been recognized as a new method to promote PA [12]. The use of VR systems represents an innovative treatment approach that reinforces task-oriented motor learning and has a positive impact on the acquisition and improvement of functional skills [13], i.e., “the ability of an individual to perform daily activities that require physical effort” [14]. Additionally, VR allows for playful work on balance and postural control across different age ranges [15]. There are also low-cost VR devices that offer significant advantages for implementation, such as affordability, accessibility, technical support, easy updates with new technologies, and no need for additional modifications [13].
The use of VR as a tool for rehabilitation and PE in individuals with CP has shown significant benefits in terms of improving motor skills, coordination, and motivation during training. Recent studies have demonstrated that integrating VR into PE programs can increase adherence and enthusiasm for PA, as it provides an immersive and playful environment simulating various scenarios and challenges [16]. Moreover, VR allows exercises to be tailored to individual abilities, promoting a more personalized and effective experience [17]. These advancements suggest that VR has the potential to become a key tool in the rehabilitation of individuals with cerebral palsy, improving their quality of life through PA [18].
Therefore, the objective of this work is to conduct a systematic PRISMA review, as well as to compile and analyze the current scientific literature on the use of PE through VR in children and adolescents with CP. Furthermore, this work aims to determine and describe the potential effects of these interventions. It is expected that this study will provide information on the existing evidence related to the effects and possible applications of VR and PE interventions in individuals with CP.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Type and Design
This research constitutes a theoretical investigation [19], conducted through the compilation of scientific documents and the selection of studies [20]. A systematic literature review was conducted using the PRISMA method to identify and select relevant scientific studies (Appendix A) [21]. This review was registered in PROSPERO, an international database for systematic reviews, ensuring a transparent and standardized approach to the review process. The review protocol was prepared in advance and is publicly available, outlining the specific objectives, methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and planned analysis. The ID for the PROSPERO registration is [CRD42024612250], providing readers with access to the detailed protocol for reference.
2.2. PICO Strategy and Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The PICO strategy (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) was employed, helping in formulating the items that structure, specify, and articulate a series of questions based on the objectives of this research [22]. The questions posed in this review are as follows: What effects related to PE and VR can occur in the population with CP? What can this type of intervention offer compared to traditional therapy methods? And can it influence the participants’ predisposition to engage in PE? In this case, the items formulated through the PICO strategy help elucidate the opportunities offered by PE using VR for the CP population aged 5 to 17 years, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
PICO strategy related to PE, VR, and CP.
Based on the PICO strategy and the research questions, a series of inclusion and exclusion criteria were implemented, as specified in Table 2.
Table 2.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
2.3. Search Strategy
The search process was conducted in August 2024. The platforms used were Web of Science (WoS), Scopus (Elsevier), and PubMed (NIH). The search was performed in English, employing the following final search phrase (“virtual reality” AND “cerebral palsy” AND (“exercise” OR “sport*”)) in the same way across all databases, refining results by language (English and Spanish) and document type (Article).
2.4. Methodological Quality Analysis
The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the questionnaire developed by Law et al. [23]. The questionnaire consists of 16 Yes/No response questions.
The articles included in this review were assessed according to several criteria: the purpose of the study (Q1), the relevance of the background literature (Q2), the suitability of the study design (Q3), the study sample (Q4 and Q5), the use of informed consent (Q6), outcome measures (Q7 and Q8), description of the method (Q9), significance of the results (Q10), description of dropouts (Q13), practical consequences (Q15), and study limitations (Q16). Additionally, all articles were categorized into three methodological quality categories: The first category (C) includes those of low methodological quality, with a score equal to or less than 50%; the second category (B) includes those of good quality, scoring between 51% and 75%; and the third category (A) includes those of excellent quality, with a score above 75% [24].
The risk of bias in the selected studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB) [25], a standardized method for assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials and is increasingly being adapted for observational and quasi-experimental studies. It evaluates several domains, including selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias, which may threaten the internal validity of a study. Each domain is rated as having a low, high, or unclear risk of bias based on whether the study design and conduct have adequately addressed potential biases.
2.5. Variable Coding
The variables used were organized into two categories: general and specific variables, as well as variables related to methodological quality (Table 3).
Table 3.
Explanation of the variables used in this review.
2.6. Study Registration Procedure
This study followed a process and phases similar to those previously established in other studies [26,27], aimed at obtaining significant and relevant findings related to the research topic [28,29]. Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the search process. To determine whether a study met the inclusion criteria for this review, two authors independently screened each record and report retrieved. All records were organized in an Excel sheet, where the inclusion or exclusion decision was documented. Any disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by consulting a third author, who independently reviewed the conflicting records. This process, shown in the Figure 2, ensured consistent and unbiased selection of studies for inclusion.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 2.
Study phases (own elaboration scheme).
2.7. Synthesis Methods
The synthesis of results in this systematic review followed a narrative and descriptive approach, primarily integrating the findings from 24 studies. The narrative synthesis method was guided by the variability in study designs, interventions, and outcomes observed across the selected studies, which limited the feasibility of a meta-analytical approach. Furthermore, the data from eligible studies were categorized into general and specific variables, which facilitated the comparison and identification of recurring themes and patterns. Given the heterogeneity of interventions (use of various VR platforms like Nintendo Wii Fit, Xbox Kinect, and REAtouch®) and outcome measures (GMFM, muscle strength, balance, and engagement), a narrative synthesis allowed for a broader integration of qualitative and quantitative findings while acknowledging their contextual differences. Finally, results were presented in both tabular and textual formats, highlighting the intervention impacts, such as improved motor functions, balance, and engagement levels, across diverse settings and VR systems
3. Results
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final sample consisted of 24 eligible studies on PE using VR in children and adolescents with CP. This section presents the variables analyzed in the different studies included in this review. Figure 3 shows the evolution in the number of studies related to PE using VR in children and adolescents with CP, published each year.
Figure 3.
Studies and year of publication.
As shown in Table 4, the risk of bias assessment revealed several concerns across the studies reviewed. Most studies have an unclear risk of bias, as they do not clearly report the randomization process; furthermore, all studies show a high risk of performance bias and detection bias, as blinding of participants and personnel is generally not feasible for VR and rehabilitation interventions. However, in the attrition and reporting bias, all studies exhibit a low risk, as participant dropouts were minimal and well handled, and the outcomes were consistently reported as intended. These factors suggest that the findings of these studies should be interpreted with caution, as the presence of bias may affect the internal validity of their results.
Table 4.
Risk of bias of included studies.
Based on the publication years, the first experimental study was published in 2006, followed by a period of inactivity until 2011. From this year onward, except for 2019, studies were continuously published until 2023, with 2012 being the year with the highest number of studies, totaling five. Regarding the methodological quality of the studies, 21 of them received an A rating, and 3 received a B rating. The criteria most often unmet were criterion 5 (justification of the number of subjects) and criterion 13 (specification of the number of study dropouts).
Table 5 presents the results of the general variables and those related to the methodological quality of the studies included in the review. Additionally, Table 6 shows the results of the specific variables from the included studies. The studies are organized chronologically, from oldest to most recent, to facilitate reading.
Table 5.
General and methodological quality variables of the studies.
Table 6.
Specific variables.
The studies included in this review comprise a total sample of 616 participants (602 of them with CP], ranging from 4 to 18 years old, with the most common age group being between 6 and 12 years. In terms of gender, it is specified for 407 subjects, of whom 228 are boys and 179 are girls, showing gender parity among participants. Likewise, the main inclusion criteria mentioned in the reviewed studies are primarily gross motor function levels I to III on the GMFCS scale, along with the ability to follow simple instructions. Less frequently, but also used in several studies, were GMFCS levels I to III, a MAS score below 2, and the MUUL scale, the latter only in the study by Winkels et al. [36]. Regarding the types of CP studied, there is a wide heterogeneity in the sample, as several studies do not specify the type of CP [30,31,37,48]. Others only mention that spastic CP is studied [32,33,41,45], with hemiplegic CP being the most mentioned type [34,35,38,40,47,49,50,53]. On the other hand, ataxic CP is represented by a single subject [36] and dyskinetic CP by four subjects [42], among other types.
The studies analyzed different intervention programs using VR in children with CP across diverse goals, including improving motor function, balance, strength, hand–eye coordination, and overall functional mobility. VR platforms such as Nintendo Wii Fit, Wii Sports Resort, IREX, and custom systems were employed, with sessions ranging from short-term intensive programs to home-based interventions. Furthermore, Table 6 provides detailed and relevant information about the studies, including the variables and assessment tools used, the materials and types of VR employed, as well as the duration and type of exposure. It also outlines the specific measurement moments for the evaluated variables, offering a comprehensive overview of the methodologies and tools applied in the interventions. The duration and type of intervention have also been highly varied, ranging from a single session [30] to 12 weeks [32,33,42,47,50], and from mixed therapies dividing intervention time between some methodology and VR [30,38,39,40,41,42,45,47,51,52,53] to intensive PE training through VR lasting up to five and a half hours [49].
Among the most used types of VR in this review are the Wii [34,36,38,39,41,42,43,46,47], the Xbox Kinect [40,44,50,51,52], and the Interactive Rehabilitation and Exercise Systems—IREX [30,31,37,48].
4. Discussion
This PRISMA systematic review compiled and analyzed 24 studies related to exercise through VR in children and adolescents with CP. The studies included in this review comprise a total sample of 616 participants (602 of them with CP), ranging from 4 to 18 years old, showing gender parity among participants. Likewise, the main inclusion criteria mentioned in the reviewed studies are primarily gross motor function levels I to III on the GMFCS scale, along with the ability to follow simple instructions. This could be due to the widespread acceptance and standardization of the GMFCS, MACS, and MAS scales, in addition to the need for children to comprehend the games to perform them correctly and understand the feedback provided by the game itself.
Given the nature of the interventions in VR programs for children with CP, blinding and randomization were particularly challenging, which is common in this area of research. These factors are likely why many studies have a higher risk of bias in performance and detection domains. Regarding the methodological quality of the studies, 21 received an A rating, while 3 received a B rating. The criteria most frequently unmet were criterion 5, which concerns the justification for the number of subjects, and criterion 13, which relates to the specification of the number of study dropouts. These shortcomings suggest a need for more transparent reporting on sample size calculations and participant retention to strengthen the validity and reproducibility of the studies.
Regarding the types of CP studied, there is a wide heterogeneity in the sample; due to this heterogeneity, it is recommended that future studies with experimental designs include a more homogeneous sample and describe it in greater detail. Furthermore, according to the classification proposed by the NINDS [4], mixed CP has not yet been represented, and there is a very small sample size for tetraplegic, ataxic, and dyskinetic or athetoid CP. This may occur because 60–70% of people with CP present with spastic CP according to the Spanish Federation of Associations for the Assistance of People with Cerebral Palsy or Similar Disabilities [54]. Thus, it is recommended to conduct more studies on the benefits of using PE programs through VR in CP types with a limited sample size in this kind of research.
The duration and type of intervention have also been highly varied, ranging from a single session [30] to 12 weeks [32,33,42,47,50], and from mixed therapies dividing intervention time between some methodology and VR [30,38,39,40,41,42,45,47,51,52,53] to intensive PE training through VR lasting up to five and a half hours [49]. Although the results suggest a positive effect of including VR in various types of intervention, except in the case of Mills et al. [48], where the lack of benefit may be due to the short duration of the intervention, more rigorous studies are still needed to confirm these positive effects [12].
Among the most used types of VR in this review are the Wii [34,36,38,39,41,42,43,46,47], the Xbox Kinect [40,44,50,51,52], and the Interactive Rehabilitation and Exercise Systems—IREX [30,31,37,48]. Nintendo WiiTM and IREX were mainly used in studies before 2019, while Kinect has been predominantly used in studies after 2015. Therefore, a trend shift towards Xbox Kinect can be observed in recent years. This may be due to its low cost and accessibility, as well as its continued innovation compared to the Wii, which is becoming more outdated. Furthermore, there is a clear predominance of low-cost VR types, as earlier recommended [13]. This will make PE practice through VR more affordable, facilitating its research and practical use by users.
The results indicate that PE programs through VR in children and adolescents with CP have shown repeated positive benefits in these interventions: improved movement control [30,39,40,41,51,52], balance [31,34,41,42,43,45,49,51], muscle strength [32,41,46,47,50], aerobic endurance [31,46,50], and participation in daily activities [36,42,53]. Additionally, increased interest, motivation, and fun are reflected [30,34,36,37,38,42,47], along with other benefits reported in fewer studies, such as improved bone mineral density [33] and reaction time [44]. These data demonstrate that PE in CP is essential to improving cardiorespiratory endurance and muscle strength and reducing sedentary behavior [8]. However, many factors, such as intensity, which ranges from moderate to intense [55], remain to be described, as well as studies that meet World Health Organization [56] recommendations. Therefore, it is recommended that future experimental articles include interventions that describe variables such as intensity in greater detail.
Most studies show greater benefits of VR compared to conventional training or therapy; however, in some cases, this difference is not seen [38,39], or it is shown in only half or fewer of the study variables [34,50,51]. This may be because VR-based PE is just an alternative or complement to conventional therapy but does not replace it. On the other hand, some of the benefits mentioned are not easily comparable between studies, such as gross motor function, which improved in the study of Gercek et al. [50] but did not in the study of Chen et al. [33], or agility, which improves in the study by Tarakci et al. [42] but not in the study by Jelsma et al. [34]. These discrepancies could be due to various factors, such as differences between groups, total intervention time, and the types of VR used, among others.
VR programs are feasible for school settings supervised by teachers, enabling implementation in rural areas where children may not receive continuous therapy [37], and in camps, improving motor function and occupational performance [49] and facilitating motor skill learning [53]. While VR integration presents multiple intervention settings, it also faces several barriers, such as the initial cost of equipment and the need for specialized staff training. Moreover, technological infrastructure in remote areas may be insufficient, hindering the effective implementation of these programs and limiting accessibility in contexts with a shortage of specialized human resources.
Regarding the maintenance periods of benefits after the interventions in different abilities, at least the following were maintained: 1 month for mobility [31], 2 months for balance [51], 3 months for movement quality, dexterity, and speed [35], 3 months for bone mineral density and lower limb muscle strength [32], transfer of learning to daily life [53], and 6 months for bimanual performance, unilateral function of the affected limb, and satisfaction with performance [49]. Although these results are limited, they show that the benefits are durable. This may be because task-oriented learning benefits functional skills [13], allowing the improvement of these skills to be utilized in daily life [14]. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies describe this benefit maintenance period more thoroughly.
Among the strengths of this work is the use of PRISMA methodology, which ensures a comprehensive search and rigorous selection of relevant studies, providing a complete and well-structured view of the topic. Additionally, the focus on a specific population, such as children and adolescents with CP, and the use of innovative technology like VR, highlights the relevance and potential impact of this study in improving therapeutic interventions. However, this work faces some limitations, such as the possible heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of design, sample size, and outcome variables. Finally, the rapid technological evolution implies that the conclusions of this review could become outdated in a short time, underscoring the need for continuous and updated research in the future.
5. Conclusions
PE using VR in children and adolescents with CP shows significant benefits. It offers an accessible and affordable alternative with low-cost devices, enhancing motivation and interest in PA in this population. Additionally, it facilitates motor learning and the acquisition of functional skills. However, further research is needed in this field to optimize interventions and develop this tool, thus overcoming barriers that limit the participation of this population in PA.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.V.A., C.C.F., and L.G.-C.; methodology, J.V.A. and L.G.-C.; results, J.V.A., M.C.E., and C.C.F.; writing—original draft preparation, J.V.A., J.M.-J., and L.G.-C.; writing—review and editing, L.G.-C., J.V.A., and M.C.E.; supervision, J.M.-J. and L.G.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. under Grant UID04045/2020 and Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal. This research was partially funded by the GOERD Research Group of the University of Extremadura.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
PRISMA CHECKLIST:
| Section and Topic | Item | Checklist Item | Location Where Item Is Reported |
| TITLE | |||
| Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review. | Page 1 |
| ABSTRACT | |||
| Abstract | 2 | See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. | Page 1 |
| INTRODUCTION | |||
| Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. | Page 2 |
| Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. | Page 2 |
| METHODS | |||
| Eligibility criteria | 5 | Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. | Page 3 |
| Information sources | 6 | Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. | Page 3 |
| Search strategy | 7 | Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used. | Page 3 |
| Selection process | 8 | Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | Page 3 |
| Data collection process | 9 | Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | Page 3 |
| Data items | 10a | List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. | Pages 4 and 5 |
| 10b | List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. | Pages 4 and 5 | |
| Study risk of bias assessment | 11 | Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | Page 4, page 6 and page 7 |
| Effect measures | 12 | Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. | Page 6 to page 13 |
| Synthesis methods | 13a | Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). | Page 3 to page 5 |
| 13b | Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions. | Page 3 to page 5 | |
| 13c | Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. | Page 3 to page 5 | |
| 13d | Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. | Page 3 to page 5 | |
| 13e | Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis, meta-regression). | Page 3 to page 5 | |
| 13f | Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. | Page 3 to page 5 | |
| Reporting bias assessment | 14 | Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). | Page 3 to page 5 |
| Certainty assessment | 15 | Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. | Page 3 to page 5 |
| RESULTS | |||
| Study selection | 16a | Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. | Page 4 |
| 16b | Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. | Page 4 | |
| Study characteristics | 17 | Cite each included study and present its characteristics. | Page 8 to page 20 |
| Risk of bias in studies | 18 | Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. | Page 6 and page 7 |
| Results of individual studies | 19 | For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. | Page 8 to page 20 |
| Results of syntheses | 20a | For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. | Page 6 and page 7 |
| 20b | Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. | No meta-analysys was done | |
| 20c | Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. | Page 8 to page 20 | |
| 20d | Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. | Page 8 to page 20 | |
| Reporting biases | 21 | Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. | Page 8 to page 20 |
| Certainty of evidence | 22 | Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. | Page 8 to page 20 |
| DISCUSSION | |||
| Discussion | 23a | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. | Page 21 and page 22 |
| 23b | Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. | Page 21 and page 22 | |
| 23c | Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. | Page 21 and page 22 | |
| 23d | Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. | Page 21 and page 22 | |
| OTHER INFORMATION | |||
| Registration and protocol | 24a | Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. | Page 2 |
| 24b | Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. | Page 2 | |
| 24c | Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. | Page 2 | |
| Support | 25 | Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. | Page 23 |
| Competing interests | 26 | Declare any competing interests of review authors. | Page 23 |
| Availability of data, code and other materials | 27 | Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. | Not applicable |
| From: Page et al., (2017) [20] | |||
References
- Cans, C. Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe. Surveillance of cerebral palsy in Europe: A collaboration of cerebral palsy surveys and registers Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe (SCPE). Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2000, 42, 816–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albesa, S.A.; Díaz, D.M.N.; Sáinz, E.A. Cerebral palsy: New challenges in the era of rare diseases. An. Sist. Sanit. Navarra. 2023, 46, e1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smithers-Sheedy, H.; Badawi, N.; Blair, E.; Cans, C.; Himmelmann, K.; Krägeloh-Mann, I.; McIntyre, S.; Slee, J.; Uldall, P.; Watson, M.; et al. What constitutes cerebral palsy in the twenty-first century? Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2014, 56, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosenbaum, P.; Paneth, N.; Leviton, A.; Goldstein, M.; Bax, M. A report: The definition and classification of cerebral palsy April 2006. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2007, 49, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
- García Ron, A.; Arriola Pereda, G.; Machado Casas, I.S.; Pascual Pascual, I.; Garriz Luis, M.; García Ribes, A.; Paredes Mercado, C.; Aguilera Albesa, S.; Peña Segura, J.L. Parálisis Cerebral. Available online: www.aeped.es/protocolos/ (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- Ryan, J.M.; Cassidy, E.E.; Noorduyn, S.G.; O’Connell, N.E. Exercise interventions for cerebral palsy. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, CD011660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verschuren, O.; Peterson, M.D.; Balemans, A.C.J.; Hurvitz, E.A. Exercise and physical activity recommendations for people with cerebral palsy. Dev. Med. Child. Neurol. 2016, 58, 798–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verschuren, O.; Wiart, L.; Hermans, D.; Ketelaar, M. Identification of facilitators and barriers to physical activity in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. J. Pediatr. 2012, 161, 488–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lagos-Manríquez, G.; Gallardo-Riquelme, R.; Campos-Campos, K.; Luarte-Rocha, C. Barreras y facilitadores para la práctica de actividad física en niños y jóvenes con parálisis cerebral: Una revisión sistemática. Rev. Cienc. Act. Fis. 2022, 23, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina-Cantero, A.J.; Pousada García, T.; Pacheco-da-Costa, S.; Lebrato-Vázquez, C.; Mendoza-Sagrera, A.; Meriggi, P.; Gómez-González, I.M. Physical Activity in Cerebral Palsy: A Current State Study. Healthcare 2024, 12, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qian, J.; McDonough, D.J.; Gao, Z. The effectiveness of virtual reality exercise on individual’s physiological, psychological and rehabilitative outcomes: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 4133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monge Pereira, E.; Molina Rueda, F.; Alguacil Diego, I.M.; Cano de la Cuerda, R.; de Mauro, A.; Miangolarra Page, J.C. Empleo de sistemas de realidad virtual como método de propiocepción en parálisis cerebral: Guía de práctica clínica. Neurologia 2014, 29, 550–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arena, R.; Cahalin, L.P.; Borghi-Silva, A.; Phillips, S.A. Improving functional capacity in heart failure: The need for a multifaceted approach. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 2014, 29, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalo-Bellot, A.; Rodríguez-Seoane, S. Effectiveness of virtual reality and video games on postural control and balance in children with cerebral palsy in Early Intervention. Fisioterapia 2022, 44, 240–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Z.; Wu, J. The effect of virtual reality games on the gross motor skills of children with cerebral palsy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2019, 16, 3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gonzalez-Argote, J. Use of virtual reality in rehabilitation. Interdiscip. Rehabil. 2022, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateni, H.; Carruthers, J.; Mohan, R.; Pishva, S. Use of Virtual Reality in Physical Therapy as an Intervention and Diagnostic Tool. Rehabil. Res. Pract. 2024, 2024, 1122286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ato, M.; López, J.J.; Benavente, A. Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. An. Psicol. 2013, 29, 1038–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, J.; Nelson, J.; Silverman, S. Métodos de Pesquisa em Atividade Física, 6th ed.; Artmed: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar]
- Oviedo, C.P.; Soria Viteri, J. Research Question and Picot Strategy. Rev. Med. 2015, 19, 66–69. [Google Scholar]
- Law, M.; Stewart, D.; Pollock, N.; Letts, L.; Bosch, J.; Westmorland, M. Guidelines for Critical Review Form—Quantitative Studies. 1998. Available online: https://canchild.ca/system/tenon/assets/attachments/000/000/366/original/quantguide.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- Sarmento, H.; Clemente, F.M.; Araújo, D.; Davids, K.; McRobert, A.; Figueiredo, A. What Performance Analysts Need to Know About Research Trends in Association Football (2012–2016): A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 799–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández-Beltrán, V.; Espada, M.C.; Santos, F.J.; Ferreira, C.C.; Gamonales, J.M. Documents Publication Evolution (1990–2022) Related to Physical Activity and Healthy Habits, a Bibliometric Review. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sterne, J.A.C.; Savovic, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.j.; Cheng, H.-J.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gámez-Calvo, L.; Hernández-Beltrán, V.; Correia Campos, L.F.; Chalapud-Narvaez, L.M.; Espada, M.C.; Gamonales, J.M. Analysis of covid-19 in models of play in children. Systematic review. EA Esc. Abierta 2024, 27, 41–57. [Google Scholar]
- Hernández-Beltrán, V.; Muñoz-Jiménez, J.; Gámez-Calvo, L.; Correia Campos, L.F.; Gamonales, J.M. Influence of injuries and functional classification on the sport performance in wheelchair basketball players. Retos 2022, 45, 1154–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamonales, J.M.; Muñoz-Jiménez, J.; León-Guzmán, K.; Ibáñez, S.J. 5-A-side football for individuals with visual impairments: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Adapt. Phys. Act. 2018, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryanton, C.; Bossé, J.; Brien, M.; Mclean, J.; Mccormick, A.; Sveistrup, H. Feasibility, Motivation, and Selective Motor Control: Virtual Reality Compared to Conventional Home Exercise in Children with Cerebral Palsy. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2006, 9, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brien, M.; Sveistrup, H. An intensive virtual reality program improves functional balance and mobility of adolescents with cerebral palsy. Pediatr. Phys. Ther. 2011, 23, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, C.L.; Hong, W.H.; Cheng, H.Y.K.; Liaw, M.Y.; Chung, C.Y.; Chen, C.Y. Muscle strength enhancement following home-based virtual cycling training in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2012, 33, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.L.; Chen, C.Y.; Liaw, M.Y.; Chung, C.Y.; Wang, C.J.; Hong, W.H. Efficacy of home-based virtual cycling training on bone mineral density in ambulatory children with cerebral palsy. Osteoporos. Int. 2013, 24, 1399–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jelsma, J.; Pronk, M.; Ferguson, G.; Jelsma-Smit, D. The effect of the Nintendo Wii Fit on balance control and gross motor function of children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Dev. Neurorehabil. 2013, 16, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rostami, H.R.; Arastoo, A.A.; Nejad, S.J.; Mahany, M.K.; Malamiri, R.A.; Goharpey, S. Effects of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in virtual environment on upper-limb function in children with spastic hemiparetic cerebral palsy: A randomized controlled trial. NeuroRehabilitation 2012, 31, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winkels, D.G.M.; Kottink, A.I.R.; Temmink, R.A.J.; Nijlant, J.M.M.; Buurke, J.H. Wii™-habilitation of upper extremity function in children with cerebral palsy. An explorative study. Dev. Neurorehabil. 2013, 16, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosie, J.A.; Ruhen, S.; Hing, W.A.; Lewis, G.N. Virtual rehabilitation in a school setting: Is it feasible for children with cerebral palsy? Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2015, 10, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chiu, H.C.; Ada, L.; Lee, H.M. Upper limb training using Wii Sports Resort™ for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: A randomized, single-blind trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2014, 28, 1015–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shin, J.W.; Song, G.G.; Hwangbo, G. Effects of conventional neurological treatment and a virtual reality training program on eye-hand coordination in children with cerebral palsy. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2015, 27, 2151–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedair, R.; Al-Talawy, H.; Shoukry, K.; Abdul-Raouf, E. Impact of virtual reality games as an adjunct treatment tool on upper extremity function of spastic hemiplegic children. Int. J. PharmTech. Res. 2016, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, C.; Hwang, W.; Hwang, S.; Chung, Y. Treadmill training with virtual reality improves gait, balance, and muscle strength in children with cerebral palsy. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 2016, 238, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarakci, D.; Ersoz Huseyinsinoglu, B.; Tarakci, E.; Razak Ozdincler, A. Effects of Nintendo Wii-Fit® video games on balance in children with mild cerebral palsy. Pediatr. Int. 2016, 58, 1042–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gatica-Rojas, V.; Méndez-Rebolledo, G.; Guzman-Muñoz, E.; Soto-Poblete, A.; Cartes-Velásquez, R.; Elgueta-Cancino, E.; Cofré Lizama, E. Does Nintendo Wii Balance Board improve standing balance? A randomized controlled trial in children with cerebral palsy. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2017, 53, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pourazar, M.; Mirakhori, F.; Hemayattalab, R.; Bagherzadeh, F. Use of virtual reality intervention to improve reaction time in children with cerebral palsy: A randomized controlled trial. Dev. Neurorehabil. 2018, 21, 515–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoo, J.W.; Lee, D.R.; Cha, Y.J.; You, S.H. Augmented effects of EMG biofeedback interfaced with virtual reality on neuromuscular control and movement coordination during reaching in children with cerebral palsy. NeuroRehabilitation 2017, 40, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chiu, H.C.; Ada, L.; Lee, S.D. Balance and mobility training at home using Wii Fit in children with cerebral palsy: A feasibility study. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e019624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Shamy, S.M.; El-Banna, M.F. Effect of Wii training on hand function in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2020, 36, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mills, R.; Levac, D.; Sveistrup, H. The effects of a 5-day virtual-reality-based exercise program on kinematics and postural muscle activity in youth with cerebral palsy. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2019, 39, 388–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roberts, H.; Shierk, A.; Clegg, N.J.; Baldwin, D.; Smith, L.; Yeatts, P.; Delgado, M.R. Constraint induced movement therapy camp for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy augmented by use of an exoskeleton to play games in virtual reality. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2020, 41, 150–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gercek, N.; Tatar, Y.; Uzun, S. Alternative exercise methods for children with cerebral palsy: Effects of virtual vs. traditional golf training. Int. J. Dev. Disabil. 2022, 68, 933–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jha, K.K.; Karunanithi, G.B.; Sahana, A.; Karthikbabu, S. Randomised trial of virtual reality gaming and physiotherapy on balance, gross motor performance and daily functions among children with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy. Somatosens. Mot. Res. 2021, 38, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hamed, S.A.; Waked, N.M.; Helmy, A.M. Effect of virtual reality games on motor performance level in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Physiother. Quart. 2022, 30, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saussez, G.; Bailly, R.; Araneda, R.; Paradis, J.; Ebner-Karestinos, D.; Klöcker, A.; Sogbossi, E.S.; Riquelme, I.; Brochard, S.; Bleyenheuft, Y. Efficacy of integrating a semi-immersive virtual device in the HABIT-ILE intervention for children with unilateral cerebral palsy: A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2023, 20, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Cerebral Palsy: Hope Through Research. Available online: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Hope-Through-Research/Cerebral-Palsy-Hope-Through-Research (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- Confederación ASPACE. Tipos de Parálisis Cerebral. Available online: https://aspace.org/tipos-de-paralisis-cerebral (accessed on 9 November 2024).
- Verschuren, O.; Darrah, J.; Novak, I.; Ketelaar, M.; Wiart, L. Health-enhancing physical activity in children with cerebral palsy: More of the same is not enough. Phys. Ther. J. 2014, 94, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Physical Activity. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity (accessed on 9 November 2024).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).