Background Augmented reality (AR) is a rapidly expanding technology; it comprises the generation of new images from digital information in the real physical environment of a person, which simulates an environment where the artificial and real are mixed. The use of AR in physiotherapy has shown benefits in certain areas of patient health. However, these benefits have not been studied as a whole. Objective This study aims to ascertain the current scientific evidence on AR therapy as a complement to physiotherapy and to determine the areas in which it has been used the most and which variables and methods have been most effective. Methods A systematic review registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted from July to August 2021 in the PubMed, PEDro, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library scientific databases using the keywords augmented reality, physiotherapy, physical therapy, exercise therapy, rehabilitation, physical medicine, fitness, and occupational therapy. The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network scale to determine the degree of recommendation. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Results In total, 11 articles were included in the systematic review. Of the 11 articles, 4 (36%) contributed information to the meta-analysis. Overall, 64% (7/11) obtained a good level of evidence, and most had a B degree of recommendation of evidence. A total of 308 participants were analyzed. Favorable results were found for the Berg Balance Scale (standardized mean change 0.473, 95% CI −0.0877 to 1.0338; z=1.65; P=.10) and the Timed Up and Go test (standardized mean change −1.211, 95% CI −3.2005 to 0.7768; z=−1.194; P=.23). Conclusions AR, in combination with conventional therapy, has been used for the treatment of balance and fall prevention in geriatrics, lower and upper limb functionality in stroke, pain in phantom pain syndrome, and turning in place in patients with Parkinson disease with freezing of gait. AR is effective for the improvement of balance; however, given the small size of the samples and the high heterogeneity of the studies, the results were not conclusive. Future studies using larger sample sizes and with greater homogeneity in terms of the devices used and the frequency and intensity of the interventions are needed. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180766; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=180766

Accommodation disorders and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions affect patients’ binocular system and visual performance. These visual disorders could be associated with musculoskeletal discomfort in the neck and shoulder area. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to ascertain the relationship between visual system disorders and the musculoskeletal system of the neck. The review protocol is available in PROSPERO (CRD42018112771). All articles selected examined the relationship between neck conditions (chronic neck pain and whiplash) and the visual system in adult populations. Studies with optometric or physiotherapeutic measurements were included. Bias risk was evaluated with the modified Cochrane Collaboration Tool and Study Quality Assessment Tool. To provide complete quality assessment evidence, the authors applied the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. The literature search was conducted in November 2018 and yielded 745 studies among all the databases. Out of these studies, 21 were finally included. Most of the studies presented a moderate methodological quality. Only one high‐quality trial was found. Based on a qualitative assessment, our systematic review and meta‐analysis revealed that all included studies established a relationship between the visual system and musculoskeletal system of the neck. However, the methods for the measurement of the visual system lacked uniformity.

Background: Epidemiological studies have suggested a pathophysiological relationship between obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The aim of this study is to evaluate the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in AD and its relationship with neurocognitive function improvement. Methods: Systematic review conducted following PRISMA’s statements. Relevant studies were searched in MEDLINE, PEDro, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL and SportDicus. Original studies in which CPAP treatment was developel in AD patients have been included. Results: 5 studies, 3 RCTs (Randomized controlled trials) and 2 pilot studies. In all RCTs the CPAP intervention was six weeks; 3 weeks of therapeutic CPAP vs. 3 weeks placebo CPAP (pCPAP) followed by 3 weeks tCPAP in patients with AD and OSA. The two pilot studies conducted a follow-up in which the impact on cognitive impairment was measured. Conclusions: CPAP treatment in AD patients decreases excessive daytime sleepiness and improves sleep quality. There are indications that cognitive deterioration function measured with the Mini Mental Scale decreases or evolves to a lesser extent in Alzheimer’s patients treated with CPAP. Caregivers observe stabilization in disease progression with integration of CPAP. More research is needed on the topic presented.

The aim of this study was to establish a relationship between nonstrabismic binocular dysfunction and baropodometric parameters. A total of 106 participants underwent binocular vision assessment by evaluating horizontal heterophoria, horizontal and vertical fusional vergence ranges, and vergence facility. Posturography was measured using the FreeMED baropodometric platform. Among the variables that the software calculates are foot surface, foot load, and foot pressure. Our results showed that in the participants with positive fusional vergence (PFV) (near) blur and recovery values outside the norm, there are statistically significant differences between the total foot area (p<0.05), forefoot area (p<0.05), forefoot load (p<0.05), and rearfoot load (p<0.05), in all of the cases of left foot vs. right foot. In the group of subjects who did not meet Sheard’s criterion (distance), that is, those with unstable binocular vision, there was a statistically significant difference (p<0.01) between maximum left and right foot pressure. In conclusion, our results establish a relationship between nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions and some baropodometric parameters.

The aim of this study was to determine the role of global postural reeducation for people with ankylosing spondylitis. We compared the effects of treatments on pain, dysfunction (using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index), range of motion, and chest expansion in a specific population aged over 18 years old with ankylosing spondylitis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statements. The search was conducted using the PubMed, Physiotherapy Database (PEDro), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), and Web of Science (WoS) databases. Clinical trials and systematic reviews/meta-analysis were reviewed. Results: 154 studies were found. Finally, four were included. Conclusions: global postural reeducation is beneficial for ankylosing spondylitis, but no more so than other conventional treatments, except for spinal mobility, where Global Postural Reeducation demonstrated an advantage.

No abstract

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the global postural re-education (GPR) program’s effectiveness compared to other exercise programs in subjects with persistent chronic low back pain. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out using PRISMA2020. An electronic search of scientific databases was performed from their inception to January 2021. Randomized controlled trials that analyzed pain and patient-reported outcomes were included in this review. Four meta-analyses were performed. The outcomes analyzed were disability due to back pain and pain. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were evaluated. The final search was conducted in March. Results: Seven trials were included, totaling 334 patients. The results showed improvement in pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) = −0.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), −1.01 to −0.37; p < 0.0001), Numerical Pain Scale (NRS) (SMD = −0.40; 95% CI, −0.87 to 0.06); p = 0.022), VAS + NRS (SMD = −1.32; 95% CI, −1.87 to −0.77; p < 0.0001) and function (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)) (SMD = −0.55; 95% CI, −0.83 to −0.27; p < 0.0001) after GPR treatment. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that GPR may be an effective method for treating LBP by decreasing pain and improving function, with strong evidence.

No abstract