Effectiveness of virtual reality technology on functional mobility of older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Age and ageing 2021-03, Vol.50 (2), p.370-379
• Main Authors: Corregidor-Sánchez, Ana Isabel, Segura-Fragoso, Antonio, Rodríguez-Hernández, Marta, Jiménez-Rojas, Concepción, Polonio-López, Begoña, Criado-Álvarez, Juan José
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Access; Clinical research; Clinical trials; Computer applications; Intervention; Meta-analysis; Mobility; Motivation; Older people; Random effects; Rehabilitation; Systematic review; Technology; Virtual reality; Weighting
• ISSN: 0002-0729; 1468-2834
• DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afaa197

Abstract 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;