ReviewJournal of mid-life health
Reimagining Aging: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Virtual Reality on Cognitive, Physical, and Functional Outcomes in Older Adults.
Review in Journal of mid-life health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diverse applications of virtual reality (VR) for older adults require a need for comprehensive, updated syntheses, and research to understand VR's effectiveness across cognitive, physical, and functional domains. This study aimed to assess the effects of VR training on cognition, physical, and functional parameters in older adults through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Online databases were searched for relevant articles, which were screened for eligibility and data extraction following bias risk assessment. A total of sixteen RCTs were included in this systematic literature review. A meta-analysis was conducted using data extracted from the included studies. Standardized mean differences were calculated for Time Up and Go test, which is a measure of functional fitness. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) using a random effects model was - 0.175 (95% confidence interval [CI]; -0.834-0.483;
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.