# Effectiveness of Augmented Reality in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Meta-Analysis
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation  
Two investigations recruited 20 patients [29; 34], 3 investigations have a sample size over 20 [32; 34; 35], and 8 investigations have less than 20 participants [26; 27; 28; 30; 31; 32; 37; 38]. The age range of the recruited patients was from 18 to 63 years old (mean = 53.7 years; standard deviation (SD) = 10.44). The time post stroke onset ranged from 2 months to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline
**Author** & **Time since** & **Total No. of Session** & **Measurement** & **Findings** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. (2010) [26] & Chronic & 9 sessions & FM; WMFT; DASH & Post-training improvement in FM 11.8\%, respectively, time improvement in WMFT 9.58\%, improvement in DASH 19.1\% & \\ [PERSON] et al. (2014) & Chronic & 8 sessions & FM, ROM & Case study 1: Improvement in FM UEMSS in both groups (17-62\% in AR Group, 4-14\% in Control Group) \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. (2015) [28] & Chronic & - & FM, BBT & Significant improvement in FM hand /wrist FM proximal subspace, BBT score in AR Game \\ [PERSON] et al. (2015) [27] & Chronic & - & TCT & Improvement in TCT 16.74\% \\ [PERSON] et al. (2017) [30] & 2 months & 14 sessions & FMUL, SULCS & Improvement in FMUL 35.8\% and in SULCS 28.8\% & Improvement in FM 1.79\% (AR) vs. 1.39\% (control) \\  & & & & Improvement in WMFT 7.8\% (AR) vs. 2.9\% (control) (\(p<\) 0.01) & \\ [PERSON] et al. (2016) [33] & Chronic & 30 sessions & WMFT, BBT, NHPT, FM & Improvement in BBT 11.2\% (AR) vs. 2.0\% (control) (\(p<\) 0.01) & \\  & & & & Improvement in NHPT 15.7\% (AR) vs. 3.14\% (control) (\(p<\) 0.01) & \\ [PERSON] et al. (2014) [31] & Chronic & 24 sessions & FM & Improvements in FM 43.75\% \\ [PERSON] et al. (2018) [29] & \textgreater{}3 months & - & Movement speed & Improvement in movement speed 15.5\% & \\  & & & & Significant improvement in the FM 8.61\% (\(p=\) 0.003), the MAS (\(p=\) 0.001 with wrist flexor muscles, \(p=\) 0.008 with 2 nd to SH finger flexor muscles), the MAL (\(p=\) 0.007), the total ARAT score (\(p=\) 0.018) & \\  & & & & Improvement in BBT score 54\% (\(p=\) 0.066) & \\ [PERSON] et al. (2014) [34] & Chronic & 20 sessions & BBS, 10 MWT & 4.35\% (control) (\(p<\) 0.05) & \\  & & & & Significant improvement in the 10 MWT 39.49\% (AR) vs. 14.1\% (control) (\(p<\) 0.05) & \\  & & & & Improvement in BBS 8.95\% (AR) vs. 4.17\% (control) & \\ [PERSON] et al. (2014) [35] & Chronic & 12 sessions & TUG, BBS, Gait velocity (cm/s) & Time improvement in TUC 18.95\% (AR) vs. 8.97\% (control) & \\  & & & & Improvement in Gait velocity 37.38\% (AR) vs. 8.47\% (control) & \\ [PERSON] et al. (2012) [36] & Chronic & 24 sessions & BBS, TUG & Improvement in BBS 21.65\% (AR) vs. 21.22\% (control) & \\ [PERSON] et al. (2012) [36] & Chronic & 24 sessions & BBS, TUG & Time improvement in TUC 22.43\% (AR) vs. 13.27\% (control) & \\  & & & & Improvement in Medical GCM dorsiflexion 56.48\% (AR) vs. 3.81\% (control) & \\  & & & & Improvement in Medical GCM dorsiflexion 78.45\% (AR) vs. 9.33\% (control) & \\ [PERSON] et al. (2013) [37] & Chronic & 12 sessions & Muscle strength & Improvement in Lateral GCM plantarflexion 35.2\% (AR) vs. 20.13\% (control) & \\  & & & & Improvement in Lateral GCM dorsiflexion 31.08\% (AR) vs. 6.246\% (control) & \\  & & & & Improvement in ankle range of motion 17.77\% (AR) vs. 12.17\% (control) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: FM, Fugl–Meyer Arm Scale; WMFT, Wolf Motor Function Test; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder hand questionnaire; F-M UEMSS, Fugl–Meyer upper extremity motor status score; ROM, range of motion; MAS, Modified Ashworth Scale; ARAT, Action research arm test; MAL, Motor activity log; BBT, Box & Block Test; TCT, task completion time; NHPT, Nine Hole Peg Test; FMUL, Fugl-Meyer Upper Limb; SULCS, stroke upper limb capacity scale; BBS, Berg Balance Scale; 10 MWT, 10-Meter Walk Test; TUG, timed up and go? GCM, gastrocnemius muscle.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: The intervention outcomes of the included investigations. 5 years.