Effectiveness of sensor-based interventions in improving gait and balance performance in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Authors: Mao Qian , Zhang Jiaxin , Yu Lisha , Zhao Yang , Luximon Yan , Wang Hailiang 
Published: May 2024

Abstract
Background
Sensor-based interventions (SI) have been suggested as an alternative rehabilitation treatment to improve older adults’ functional performance. However, the effectiveness of different sensor technologies in improving gait and balance remains unclear and requires further investigation.

Methods
Ten databases (Academic Search Premier; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Complete; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; PubMed; Web of Science; OpenDissertations; Open grey; ProQuest; and Grey literature report) were searched for relevant articles published up to December 20, 2022. Conventional functional assessments, including the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, normal gait speed, Berg Balance Scale (BBS), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), and Falling Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), were used as the evaluation outcomes reflecting gait and balance performance. We first meta-analyzed the effectiveness of SI, which included optical sensors (OPTS), perception sensors (PCPS), and wearable sensors (WS), compared with control groups, which included non-treatment intervention (NTI) and traditional physical exercise intervention (TPEI). We further conducted sub-group analysis to compare the effectiveness of SI (OPTS, PCPS, and WS) with TPEI groups and compared each SI subtype with control (NTI and TPEI) and TPEI groups.

Results
We scanned 6255 articles and performed meta-analyses of 58 selected trials (sample size = 2713). The results showed that SI groups were significantly more effective than control or TPEI groups (p < 0.000) in improving gait and balance performance. The subgroup meta-analyses between OPTS groups and TPEI groups revealed clear statistically significant differences in effectiveness for TUG test (mean difference (MD) = − 0.681 s; p < 0.000), normal gait speed (MD = 4.244 cm/s; p < 0.000), BBS (MD = 2.325; p = 0.001), 6MWT (MD = 25.166 m; p < 0.000), and FES-I scores (MD = − 2.036; p = 0.036). PCPS groups also presented statistically significant differences with TPEI groups in gait and balance assessments for normal gait speed (MD = 4.382 cm/s; p = 0.034), BBS (MD = 1.874; p < 0.000), 6MWT (MD = 21.904 m; p < 0.000), and FES-I scores (MD = − 1.161; p < 0.000), except for the TUG test (MD = − 0.226 s; p = 0.106). There were no statistically significant differences in TUG test (MD = − 1.255 s; p = 0.101) or normal gait speed (MD = 6.682 cm/s; p = 0.109) between WS groups and control groups.

Conclusions
SI with biofeedback has a positive effect on gait and balance improvement among a mixed population of older adults. Specifically, OPTS and PCPS groups were statistically better than TPEI groups at improving gait and balance performance, whereas only the group comparison in BBS and 6MWT can reach the minimal clinically important difference. Moreover, WS groups showed no statistically or clinically significant positive effect on gait and balance improvement compared with control groups. More studies are recommended to verify the effectiveness of specific SI.
Research registration PROSPERO platform: CRD42022362817. Registered on 7/10/2022