MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992455165 · doi:10.1089/g4h.2019.0016

Effects of Exergaming on Balance of Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019· review· en· W2992455165 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGames for Health Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)Meta-analysisRandomized controlled trialDynamic balanceMedicinePsychological interventionPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Balance is critical for older adults to perform daily activities. However, age-related declines in balance increase the risk of falls and severe injuries, such as bone fractures and head injuries. Exergames have been widely applied to improve health-related outcomes in older adults. This meta-analysis aims to quantify the effects of exergaming interventions on balance performance in healthy older adults. A literature search was performed using PubMed, ScienceDirect, SPORTDiscus, COCHRANE, EBSCO, and EMBASE. A total of 16 experimental studies met inclusion criteria for a full-text review. Data synthesis examined balance functions, including static, dynamic, proactive, and perceived balance abilities when performing daily activities. Intervention protocols of the reviewed studies included an average of two to three 40-minute exergaming sessions per week for 8 weeks. A random effects model identified significant effects in favor of the exergaming group, with moderate effect size in dynamic balance (Hedges' g = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.26-1.30, P < 0.001), and perceived balance (Hedges' g = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.04-0.58, P = 0.02); and considerable effect size in Chair Stand Test (Hedges' g = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.26-1.30, P = 0.003), and balance test batteries (Hedges' g = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.42-1.02, P < 0.001). No significant effect was found in the static balance (Hedges' g = 0.22, 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.76, P = 0.42), or proactive balance (Hedges' g = 0.54, 95% CI = -0.12 to 1.20, P = 0.11). Metaanalysis identified exergaming-associated benefits in older adults' balance function and confidence. This finding supports the feasibility of exergaming as a supplementary approach to improve balance for healthy older adults. Health professionals may optimize treatment effect by integrating exergaming sessions into a traditional balance exercise program.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1050.017
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it