Cited by 53Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

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

Open access
Corregidor-Sánchez, Ana Isabel, Segura-Fragoso, Antonio, Rodríguez-Hernández, Marta, Jiménez-Rojas, Concepción, Polonio-López, Begoña, Criado-Álvarez, Juan José·2021·Age and Ageing

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; <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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ageing/afaa197

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. A full list of 56 reference can be found in 8. · DOI
  2. Forum OTP. Domain and process (3rd edition). Am J Occup er 2014; 68: S1-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corregidor-Sánchez, A. I., Segura-Fragoso, A., Rodríguez-Hernández, M., Jiménez-Rojas, C., Polonio-López, B., & Criado-Álvarez, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), Talavera de la Reina, Toledo, Spain
  • University of Castilla-La Mancha (ES)
  • Department of Geriatric Medicine, Hospital Central de la Cruz Roja Madrid, Spain
Venue
Age and Ageing
Published
2020-10-17
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
370-379
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
OpenAlex
W3092882806
Cited by
53
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Age and Ageing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RUIdeRA - Institutional University Repository (University of Castilla-La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
virtual reality, functional mobility, older adults, rehabilitation, gait, ambulation, virtual reality therapy, conventional therapy comparison, number of sessions
MeSH terms
Virtual Reality, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Humans, Technology, Walking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review