Exploring balance control mechanisms in people with multiple sclerosis in virtual reality environment: a systematic review.
Badriah Alayidi, Emad Al-Yahya, Donal McNally and 1 others
PMID 40189590WHAT IT FOUND
Virtual reality balance training for people with MS shows mixed results compared to standard therapy.
While patients tolerated the technology well with minimal side effects, the evidence is too heterogeneous to confirm that VR is superior to traditional balance exercises for improving stability.
Key findings
01The review could not confirm that virtual reality is superior to traditional balance training due to significant differences in study protocols and outcomes.
02People with MS generally tolerated virtual reality environments well, with minimal and transient adverse effects such as nausea or dizziness.
03The methodological quality of the included studies was low, with most failing to blind participants or assessors, which limits the reliability of the findings.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The included studies were of low methodological quality, with most lacking blinding of participants and assessors, which introduces a high risk of bias. There was significant heterogeneity in VR systems, immersion levels, intervention durations, and outcome measures, making direct comparisons and meta-analysis impossible. The review did not assess long-term outcomes, so it is unclear if benefits from VR training persist after the intervention ends. Most studies focused on relapsing-remitting MS, limiting the generalizability of findings to other MS phenotypes.
Declared interests
The provided text does not include a specific conflicts of interest or funding statement for the review authors themselves.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume VR is superior to traditional balance training. The review found no consistent evidence of superiority over standard methods, and the low quality of the included studies means any observed benefits could be due to bias or placebo effects rather than the technology itself.