Geriatric nursing (New York, N.Y.) · 2025
Comparison of motor imagery and action observation on lower limb function in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Mufan, Zhang Tingran, He Yi, Luo Jiong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Lower limb functional decline is one of the main factors threatening the physical health of older adults. This study aims to compare the effects of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) on lower limb function in older adults through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: A computer search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to inclusion criteria, conducted risk assessments, and performed data analysis using Revman 5.4 software after the systematic review.
RESULTS: Fourteen randomized controlled trials involving 475 older adults were included. The meta-analysis results showed that, in the Timed Up and Go test, MI intervention did not significantly improve walking time (WMD = -1.93, 95 % CI= -4.47, 0.61, P = 0.14), and there was heterogeneity. In contrast, AO intervention significantly reduced walking time (WMD = -0.76, 95 % CI= -1.45, -0.07, P = 0.03) with low heterogeneity. Additionally, neither MI nor AO interventions significantly improved the Berg Balance Scale or 10-meter walking test scores. MI intervention also did not improve the Falls Efficacy Scale scores, and due to the small number of studies, AO intervention was analyzed descriptively.
CONCLUSION: Overall, both MI and AO interventions have a positive effect on improving lower limb function in older adults, but compared to MI, AO appears to be more effective in enhancing lower limb motor function in this population.
METHODS: A computer search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to inclusion criteria, conducted risk assessments, and performed data analysis using Revman 5.4 software after the systematic review.
RESULTS: Fourteen randomized controlled trials involving 475 older adults were included. The meta-analysis results showed that, in the Timed Up and Go test, MI intervention did not significantly improve walking time (WMD = -1.93, 95 % CI= -4.47, 0.61, P = 0.14), and there was heterogeneity. In contrast, AO intervention significantly reduced walking time (WMD = -0.76, 95 % CI= -1.45, -0.07, P = 0.03) with low heterogeneity. Additionally, neither MI nor AO interventions significantly improved the Berg Balance Scale or 10-meter walking test scores. MI intervention also did not improve the Falls Efficacy Scale scores, and due to the small number of studies, AO intervention was analyzed descriptively.
CONCLUSION: Overall, both MI and AO interventions have a positive effect on improving lower limb function in older adults, but compared to MI, AO appears to be more effective in enhancing lower limb motor function in this population.