BACKGROUND: The accessibility, versatility and motivation provided by virtual reality technology (VRT) have fostered its rapid expansion as a rehabilitation technique to improve functional mobility. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes using VRT, specific virtual reality technology (VRT-S) and non-specific virtual reality technology (VRT-NS), to improve functional mobility in individuals aged >60 years versus conventional treatment (CT) or no intervention. METHODS: Nine databases (Cochrane Library, Scopus, PEDro, Medline, CSIC, Web of Science, OT Seeker, NGCH and CINAHL) were searched to identify randomised trials up to December 2019. Results of clinical trials that used VRT-S and VRT-NS in rehabilitation were combined, using a random effects model with inverse variance weighting of the studies. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42019131630. Overall, there was moderate quality of evidence for the functional mobility results, which means that the estimate of effect is likely to change. RESULTS: Sixteen of the 18 studies selected (n = 568) provided data for the subgroup meta-analysis. VRT-NS was more effective in improving functional mobility than no intervention [standardised mean difference (SMD) = -1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1,91 to -0,14). VRT-NS was also more effective than CT in improving resistance in ambulation (SMD = -1.20; 95% CI -1.93 to 0.46). No significant differences were found between VRT-S and CT or no intervention. Programmes in which >18 sessions were applied were more beneficial (SMD = -0.89; 95% CI -1.71 to -0.08; <0.001) than programmes with ≤18 sessions (SMD = 0.04; 95% CI -0.51 to 0.59) versus no intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that VRT is an effective intervention for improving functional mobility in older persons compared with CT. VRT-NS proved to be more effective than VRT-S. However, these results are still not conclusive due to the low methodological quality of the studies. Thus, new studies and analyses are required.
BACKGROUND: The accessibility, versatility and motivation provided by virtual reality technology (VRT) have fostered its rapid expansion as a rehabilitation technique to improve functional mobility. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes using VRT, specific virtual reality technology (VRT-S) and non-specific virtual reality technology (VRT-NS), to improve functional mobility in individuals aged >60 years versus conventional treatment (CT) or no intervention. METHODS: Nine databases (Cochrane Library, Scopus, PEDro, Medline, CSIC, Web of Science, OT Seeker, NGCH and CINAHL) were searched to identify randomised trials up to December 2019. Results of clinical trials that used VRT-S and VRT-NS in rehabilitation were combined, using a random effects model with inverse variance weighting of the studies. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42019131630. Overall, there was moderate quality of evidence for the functional mobility results, which means that the estimate of effect is likely to change. RESULTS: Sixteen of the 18 studies selected (n = 568) provided data for the subgroup meta-analysis. VRT-NS was more effective in improving functional mobility than no intervention [standardised mean difference (SMD) = -1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1,91 to -0,14). VRT-NS was also more effective than CT in improving resistance in ambulation (SMD = -1.20; 95% CI -1.93 to 0.46). No significant differences were found between VRT-S and CT or no intervention. Programmes in which >18 sessions were applied were more beneficial (SMD = -0.89; 95% CI -1.71 to -0.08; <0.001) than programmes with ≤18 sessions (SMD = 0.04; 95% CI -0.51 to 0.59) versus no intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that VRT is an effective intervention for improving functional mobility in older persons compared with CT. VRT-NS proved to be more effective than VRT-S. However, these results are still not conclusive due to the low methodological quality of the studies. Thus, new studies and analyses are required.
Authors: Maarit Janhunen; Antti Löppönen; Simon Walker; Taavi Punsár; Niina Katajapuu; Sulin Cheng; Juha Paloneva; Konsta Pamilo; Mika Luimula; Raija Korpelainen; Timo Jämsä; Ari Heinonen; Eeva Aartolahti Journal: Front Sports Act Living Date: 2022-07-27