Patient satisfaction and tolerance of virtual reality rehabilitation in subacute ischemic stroke: a pilot study.
Sarka Banikova, Alice Najsrova, Istvan Szegedi and 4 others
PMID 40932883WHAT IT FOUND
Patients with subacute stroke reported high satisfaction and good tolerance for virtual reality rehabilitation.
Most found the system clear and comfortable, with no serious adverse events. Physiotherapists rated outcomes as similar to or better than conventional therapy, supporting VR as a feasible adjunct.
Key findings
01The mean patient satisfaction score was 25.0 out of 30, with 68.4% of patients reporting high satisfaction.
02No serious adverse events occurred, and no patients discontinued sessions due to intolerance or cardiovascular concerns.
03Physiotherapists rated 84.2% of patients as having outcomes similar to or better than those expected with conventional rehabilitation alone.
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 study was a small pilot (n=19) with no randomized control group, so it cannot determine if VR is more effective than conventional therapy. Participants were selected from those willing to use VR, potentially introducing selection bias toward more technology-accepting patients. The single-center design limits generalizability to other clinical settings. VR sessions varied in number and duration based on individual patient needs, preventing conclusions about optimal dosing. The study only assessed immediate satisfaction and tolerance, not long-term outcomes or sustained engagement.
Declared interests
The study was conducted in partnership with RBP Health Insurance Company. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic through a Student Grant Competition.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the physiotherapist ratings as evidence that VR is superior to conventional therapy. The study had no control group, and the ratings reflect perceived outcomes in a small, non-randomized pilot, not proven clinical superiority.