## 3 Results
### The Effectiveness of Virtual Reality and Exergames
#### 3.4.1 Quantitative Outcomes
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**First Author** & **Outcomes** & **Research Tools** & **Results** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [33] & Balance, fear of falling & BBS, ABC & The Wiki fit training was effective in improving balance in elderly (BBS at 4 weeks: 2.7 (1.2-4.2, \(p\) = 0.001, and BBS at 8 weeks: 4.1 (2.6-5.7, \(p\) = 0.001)). \\ [PERSON] et al. [44] & Balance & Tri-axial ActiGraph accelerometer & No benefits were found for earplanes compared with conventional exercises regarding balance skills. \\ [PERSON] et al. [29] & Fear of falling, functional & FFM, SDS & There was a statistically significant difference between SG and CG for reducing fear of falling (\(p\) = 0.07). \\ [PERSON] et al. [54] & Fear of falling, knee strength, balance, risk of falling, physical & MFES, KKS, TUG, HGS, 6 MMV, & There was a statistically significant effect of the SG over the CG in reducing fear of falling at 20K filters difference = 0.85 patient, 95% CI (2.0 to 14.4, \(\sigma\) = 0.01) and reverse results in the case of (KG) C (KG) C (difference = \(\sigma_{\text{agg}}\), 95% CI (1.0 to 13.4, \(\sigma\) = 0.001)). \\ [PERSON] et al. [31] & Mobility, risk of falling, balance & SPPB, MBR, Step Test, RMI, AM-PAC & No impact on overall mobility, SG performed significantly better than CG for MR at Week 2 (between-group difference after baseline adjustment \\ [PERSON] et al. [46] & Balance, fall risk & BBS, TUG, OUST, TS, FIES-I & Similar improvements were found in balance (BBS \(p\) < 0.01, 4.0 \(\sigma\) = 0.03) and fall risk (TUG \(p\) = 0.01, \(\sigma\) = 0.01) in both the SG and CC. There were no differences between groups. \\ [PERSON] et al. [38] & Gait analysis, balance, endurance, risk of falling, physical activity & Gait speed, leading foot clearance from obstacle during walking, 20K filter & Traditional training play for red or far plerations (RB 0.85, 95% CI = 0.89-0.95, \(p\) = 0.033) and for participants with [PERSON]'s disease (RR 0.45, 95% CI = 0.24-0.86, \(p\) = 0.015). However, incident rates after training did not differ significantly between groups among people with idiopathic falls or participants with mild cognitive impairment. \\ [PERSON] et al. [35] & Balance, risk of falling & BBS, TUG, stability test: -reaction time & Significant improvement in balance was achieved in the SG in comparison to CG, namely: BBS score (\(p\) < 0.001), reaction time in the anterior direction (\(p\) = 0.003), end-point excursion, and maximum excursion in all four directions of the limits of stability test (\(p\) < 0.001). \\ [PERSON] et al. [32] & Gait analysis, functional fitness, fall & GAITRite electronic walkway, SPPB, 6-MVT, FES-I & GAITRite electronic walkway, SPPB, 6-MVT, FES-I & Gain structure over CG in the costs of step time variability in fast walking \#1,36 = 2.95, \(p\) = 0.044, one-tailed, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.010). Global linear time effects showed improved gait functional fitness and reduced fall frequency without differences between interventions. \\ [PERSON], et al. [47] & Risk of falling, health measures, physical measures & PPA, WHODAS 2.0, Icon-FES, SPPB, (P1,27 = 4.54, \(p\) = 0.035), Participants with higher adherence also improved in postural sway (F1,75 = 4.13, \(p\) = 0.046), stepping reaction (F1,75 = 4.40, \(p\) = 0.041), and executive function (F1,71 = 4.21, \(p\) = 0.044). \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**First Author** & **Outcomes** & **Research Tools** & **Results** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON], et al. [30]} & Risk of falling, functional mobility, & \multirow{2}{*}{WHOONS 2.0, TPA, TUG, STS} & SG reduced significantly in fall risk (\(p=0.36\)), improved proprioception (\(p=0.015\)), and isometric knee extension strength (\(p=0.32\)) in comparison \\  & muscle strength & & \\  & Both interventions–ISE and evegames—————————