An immersive virtual reality game to train spatial attention orientation after stroke: a feasibility study

Immersive virtual reality (IVR) may boost neglect recovery, as it can provide an engaging experience in a 3D environment. We designed an IVR rehabilitation game for neglect patients using the Oculus Rift. Multisensory cues were presented in the neglected visual field in a patient-tailored way. We acquired pilot data in 15 neurologically healthy controls and 7 stroke patients. First, we compared cybersickness before and after VR exposure. Second, we assessed the user experience through a questionnaire. Third, we tested whether neglect symptoms corresponded between the VR game and a computerized cancelation task. Fourth, we evaluated the effect of the multisensory cueing on target discrimination. Last, we tested two algorithms to tailor the game to the characteristics of the neglected visual field. Cybersickness significantly reduced after VR exposure in six stroke patients and was low in healthy controls. Patients rated the user experience neutral to positive. In addition, neglect symptoms were consistent between a computerized cancelation and VR rehabilitation task. The multisensory cue positively affected target discrimination in the game and we successfully presented sensory stimulation to the neglected visual field in a patient-tailored way. Our results show that it is promising to use gamified patient-tailored immersive VR for neglect rehabilitation.status: Published onlin

Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate

Objective: The objective of this study was to study if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rehabilitation (a field where complex interventions prevail) published in main journals include all the details needed to replicate the intervention in clinical practice (clinical replicability). Study Design and Setting: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, the USA) reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting. Results: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one “absent” information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8–19% “perfect” information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50–79% “perfect”) were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting, and intervention). Conclusion: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists such as CONSORT are not enough, and also Template for Intervention Description and Clinical replication do not cover all the requirements. This study supports the need for field-specific checklists. © 2019 Elsevier Inc

Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rehabilitation (a field where complex interventions prevail) published in main journals include all the details needed to replicate the intervention in clinical practice (clinical replicability). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, the USA) reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting. RESULTS: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one "absent" information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8-19% "perfect" information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50-79% "perfect") were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting, and intervention). CONCLUSION: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists such as CONSORT are not enough, and also Template for Intervention Description and Clinical replication do not cover all the requirements. This study supports the need for field-specific checklists.status: publishe