Age and ageing · 2026
Multicomponent exercise with virtual reality for preventing functional decline in hospitalized older adults: a randomized, three-arm, parallel clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Martinez-Velilla Nicolás, Zambom-Ferraresi Fabiola, de-la-Riva Marisa Fernández-González-, Izco-Cubero Maite, Cedeno-Veloz Bernardo A, Galbete Arkaitz, Capón-Sáez Amaya, Lozano-Vicario Lucia, Echeverría-Beistegui Iciar, García-Baztán Agurne, Dominguez-Mendoza Soledad, Chenhuichen Chenhui, Zambom-Ferraresi Fabricio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acute hospitalization often triggers functional decline in older adults. While multicomponent exercise programs (MEP) are effective, the role of immersive Virtual Reality (VR) remains underexplored in acute geriatric wards. This study evaluated the efficacy of a VR-enhanced MEP program compared with conventional MEP and usual care (UC).
METHODS: Randomized, three-arm, parallel clinical trial in an acute geriatric ward. Patients aged ≥75 years were randomized to receive 1) MEP, 2) MEP-VR, or 3) UC. The primary outcome was the change in functional capacity, as measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Secondary outcomes included the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, cognitive status (MMSE), Barthel Index, Quality of Life (EuroQol-5D-5L), and muscle strength.
RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were enrolled (mean age, 86.4 [SD 5.2] years). Regarding the primary outcome, MEP was significantly more effective than MEP-VR. The between-group difference in SPPB was 1.04 points (95% CI: 0.33, 1.75) for MEP vs. UC and 0.13 points (95% CI: -0.64, 0.89) for MEP-VR vs. UC. Direct comparison showed MEP-VR performed lower than MEP (-0.91 points; 95% CI: -1.67, -0.16). Regarding cognitive function, between-group analysis showed superior improvements in both intervention arms versus control, with MEP-VR demonstrating a significant advantage (+1.90 points; 95% CI: 0.76, 3.04) and MEP showing an improvement of +1.23 points (95% CI: 0.18, 2.28) versus UC; direct comparison between MEP-VR and MEP yielded a non-significant difference of +0.67 points (95% CI: -0.46, 1.80). Adherence was high, with no serious adverse events related to VR.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional MEP remains the most effective intervention for improving physical function. Further studies are required to confirm the comparative effectiveness of VR integration for cognitive benefits in holistic geriatric care.
METHODS: Randomized, three-arm, parallel clinical trial in an acute geriatric ward. Patients aged ≥75 years were randomized to receive 1) MEP, 2) MEP-VR, or 3) UC. The primary outcome was the change in functional capacity, as measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Secondary outcomes included the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, cognitive status (MMSE), Barthel Index, Quality of Life (EuroQol-5D-5L), and muscle strength.
RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were enrolled (mean age, 86.4 [SD 5.2] years). Regarding the primary outcome, MEP was significantly more effective than MEP-VR. The between-group difference in SPPB was 1.04 points (95% CI: 0.33, 1.75) for MEP vs. UC and 0.13 points (95% CI: -0.64, 0.89) for MEP-VR vs. UC. Direct comparison showed MEP-VR performed lower than MEP (-0.91 points; 95% CI: -1.67, -0.16). Regarding cognitive function, between-group analysis showed superior improvements in both intervention arms versus control, with MEP-VR demonstrating a significant advantage (+1.90 points; 95% CI: 0.76, 3.04) and MEP showing an improvement of +1.23 points (95% CI: 0.18, 2.28) versus UC; direct comparison between MEP-VR and MEP yielded a non-significant difference of +0.67 points (95% CI: -0.46, 1.80). Adherence was high, with no serious adverse events related to VR.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional MEP remains the most effective intervention for improving physical function. Further studies are required to confirm the comparative effectiveness of VR integration for cognitive benefits in holistic geriatric care.