PTSystematic ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026

The role of virtual reality in balance training for Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sudhindra Vooturi, Sai Sirisha, Sumanth Panem and 1 others

PMID 42266359

WHAT IT FOUND

Virtual reality balance training was not shown to beat conventional physiotherapy for balance in Parkinson's disease.

Both groups improved, but not by enough to be confident the change was real, and the six small trials disagreed strongly with each other.

Key findings

01Virtual reality balance training was not significantly better than conventional physiotherapy for balance: the difference in Berg Balance Scale change between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.269), and the pooled effect did not reach significance (standardised mean difference 1.89, 95% confidence interval -0.62 to 4.4).

02Both groups improved on the Berg Balance Scale on average, by 1.64 ± 1.84 points in the control group and 2.85 ± 1.74 points in the VR group, but neither improvement reached the 4 to 7 points the scale needs before a change can be detected.

03The six trials disagreed strongly with each other: heterogeneity was significant (p < 0.01) and 93% of the variability between them came from real differences between the studies rather than chance.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only six trials and 214 people were included, and everyone was at Hoehn and Yahr stage II or III and well enough to take part in exercise training, so this tells you nothing about people with more advanced disease or those who cannot walk. The trials disagreed so much with each other that 93% of the variability between them was due to real differences in the studies rather than chance, which makes a single pooled number hard to trust. The VR devices, programmes and doses varied widely, from 10 to 60 sessions. The authors describe the blinding in the six trials as inconclusive, so some of the measured improvement may reflect expectation rather than the treatment. The review only accepted trials that used the Berg Balance Scale, so it says nothing about other balance, gait or falls measures, and the authors note the scale is limited by a ceiling effect and by scoring that depends on the tester's judgment. The VR programmes were predominantly non-immersive, so these results do not tell you about immersive headset-based VR. Average follow-up was 3.5 months and only one trial followed participants for 12 months, so longer-term effects are unknown. The authors suggest the training duration may simply have been too short.

Declared interests

The authors declare that no financial support was received for this work or its publication. No other conflicts of interest are reported in the text provided.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the pooled standardised mean difference of 1.89, or the VR group's average gain of 2.85 points on the Berg Balance Scale, as evidence that virtual reality improves balance. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.269), the pooled confidence interval ran from -0.62 to 4.4 and crossed zero, and the overall test found no effect. Both groups' gains were below the 4 to 7 points the scale needs before a change can be detected, the six trials disagreed strongly with each other, and the authors' suggestion that VR adds something on top of conventional physiotherapy was not tested here.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →