ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparing the Effects of AI-Assisted and Traditional Exercise on Physical Health Outcomes in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Digital Transformation of Rehabilitation Medicine: A Narrative Review of Artificial Intelligence Innovations, Clinical Integration, and Future Paradigms.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Empowers Physical Therapy for Older Adults: A Perspective.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Correction: Fan et al. Comparing the Effects of AI-Assisted and Traditional Exercise on Physical Health Outcomes in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From movement to mood regulation: exercise-based digital interventions using mobile health and ecological momentary assessment for mental health and cognitive function in older adults: a narrative review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveExercise is widely recognized as an effective non-pharmacological intervention to maintain health in older adults. With advances in artificial intelligence (AI), AI-assisted exercise has emerged as a novel rehabilitation approach, yet its comparative effectiveness against traditional and software-assisted programs remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and rank the relative effectiveness of these interventions on multiple physical and psychological outcomes using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
methodsFollowing the PRISMA-NMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus up to June 2025. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults ≥ 60 years comparing AI-assisted, software-assisted, and conventional upper/lower limb rehabilitation. Six outcomes were analyzed: gait, balance, range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, cognitive function, and quality of life (QOL). Stata 17.0 was used to conduct the NMA, calculating the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and SUCRA rankings, with assessments of heterogeneity and risk of bias.
resultsSeventy RCTs with 808 participants were included. All active interventions outperformed the placebo. AI-assisted programs showed the strongest effects on gait (SMD = 1.33) and balance (SMD = 0.76), while software-assisted interventions ranked highest for ROM (SMD = 0.69) and QOL (SMD = 1.06). Both AI and software interventions improved cognition and muscle strength. Heterogeneity was low (I
conclusionsAI-assisted exercise is highly effective for gait and balance, while software-assisted approaches excel in ROM and QOL. These interventions hold promise for community and home-based rehabilitation. Future studies should investigate integrated "AI + traditional" models and incorporate biomechanical and neurophysiological indicators to optimize personalized care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.