Virtual Reality Versus Conventional Rehabilitation in Parkinson's Disease: What the Pooled Trial Evidence Shows

Physical therapists and physical therapist assistants who work with adults living with Parkinson’s disease in outpatient, home health, skilled nursing, or community wellness settings, and who want a clear account of what the pooled randomized evidence on virtual reality training actually showed. Physical therapist assistants will find the material useful for carrying out balance and gait interventions under the direction of the supervising physical therapist.

Physical therapists and physical therapist assistants

Intended audience

Physical Therapy

Level

Intermediate

Delivery format

Online, asynchronous, self-paced course: interactive reading with audio or video, and a scored post-test.

Based on

This course reports on a single published source. Every finding, limitation, and conclusion described in the course comes from that source.

Kwon SH, Park JK, Koh YH. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of virtual reality-based rehabilitation for people with Parkinson’s disease. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023;20(1):94. doi:10.1186/s12984-023-01219-3. PMID: 37475014. PMCID: PMC10360300.

Scope note

The course describes what these authors found and how certain they were about it. It does not extend their findings to populations, devices, or outcomes the review did not examine.

After completing this course, you will be able to:

1. Describe which balance and walking outcomes improved with virtual reality-based rehabilitation compared with conventional treatment in this review, and which did not.
2. State who was studied, what the comparison treatment was, and how the trials delivered virtual reality training.
3. Explain the limitations the authors identified and what they concluded about the direction of future research.

1. Start Here: How This Course Works
2. Podcast: Virtual Reality and Balance in Parkinson's Disease (about nine minutes)
3. Parkinson's Disease, Virtual Reality, and the Question the Authors Asked
4. Inside the Review: Trials, Participants, and Quality Checks
5. What Changed and What Did Not: The Pooled Results
6. Where the Evidence Is Thin: Blinding, Outcome Tools, and Missing Long-Term Data
7. What This Could Mean for Neurologic Practice
8. Key Takeaways
9. Post-Test and Course Evaluation

Quinn Millington, PT, DPT, ECS is the instructor of record: the licensed clinician who reviewed this course and signed off on it. The name and credentials print on the certificate.

Disclosures. This course was developed by The ConEd Solution, which has a financial interest in its sale. No outside funding or sponsorship was received. The instructor of record has no affiliation with the authors of the source publication or their institutions.

This course awards 0.5 contact hours (30 min). How you earn them:

1. Complete the course. Every lesson, in order.
2. Pass the post-test. Score 80% or higher. Retakes are allowed.
3. Complete the evaluation. A short form rating each learning objective and the course.
4. Download your certificate. It is issued on completion and stays available in My Account.

The episode time is its measured length. Reading, post-test and evaluation times are estimates.

This course is designed to satisfy the quality requirements state boards set for continuing education. Requirements vary by state, and confirming that a course fits your renewal is up to you. Each state’s own acceptance statement is in the credit panel on this page.

1. This course reports on a single published source. Every finding, limitation, and conclusion described in the course comes from that source.
2. Kwon SH, Park JK, Koh YH. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of virtual reality-based rehabilitation for people with Parkinson's disease. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023;20(1):94. doi:10.1186/s12984-023-01219-3. PMID: 37475014. PMCID: PMC10360300.
3. Scope note
4. The course describes what these authors found and how certain they were about it. It does not extend their findings to populations, devices, or outcomes the review did not examine.