The effect of virtual reality training on the daily participation of patients: A meta-analysis

•Daily participation is one of the indicators of patient function independence.•Virtual reality (VR) training is increasingly used in the field of rehabilitation.•This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of VR training for patients' daily participation.•More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted. Virtual reality (VR) training are regarded as promising new tools for rehabilitation, but the effect on patients' daily participation is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of virtual reality (VR) training on different types of patients' daily participation through a meta-analysis. The PubMed, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Embase, and web science databases were searched for studies published through September 2020. Thirty-five randomized controlled trials of virtual reality (VR) training compared with conventional treatment, Other electronic rehabilitation systems, usual care for various types of patients were included. All of the studies were available in English. Standardized mean differences (SMD), 95 % confidence intervals (CI), publication bias, and heterogeneity were calculated. The Virtual reality (VR) training group is better than the control group in daily participation improvement on all types of patients. There was a small, significant effect(p＜0.001; SMD = 0.25[95 %CI,0.14 to 0.36], I2 = 0.00 %). Observing only the type of Stroke, the VR training group is still better than the control group in improving patients' daily participation (p＜0.001, SMD = 0.24[95 %CI, 0.11 to 0.37], I2 = 0.00 %). Using the cumulative Meta-analysis method to observe the included literature according to the timeline, Using the cumulative Meta-analysis method to observe the included literature according to the timeline, and it has only achieved positive results since 2015 (Nam-YoNg Lee 2015, p = 0.048, SMD = 0.22[95 %CI,0.00 to 0.44]). The heterogeneity of the studies was not detected, but there is obvious publication bias. Because of controversy over obvious publication bias, we need to be cautious about the conclusion that VR is better than the control group in promoting the patient's daily participation.