## 3 Results
### The Effectiveness of Virtual Reality and Exergames  
#### 3.4.1 Quantitative Outcomes  
Quantitative outcomes were assessed as the physical performance of patients (Table 2) and mainly contain the following activities: balance, gait ability, risk of falling, and muscle strength. The main tools used to evaluate the above variables were the Berg Balance Scale in 8/21 studies, the Timed Up and Go Test and its variants in 10/21 studies, the Falls Efficacy Scale-International and its variations (FES-I) in 6/21 studies, and the 10-to-2-min march test in 4/21 studies. Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) was used in 6/21 studies to evaluate physical activity and risk of disability in activities of daily living. The assessment of the impact of VR rehabilitation and exergames on physical function among the elderly varies in the analyzed studies. In 11 out of 21 studies, there was a significantly greater improvement among assessed specific outcomes for VR training than conventional therapy. Moreover, 8 of the 21 pieces of research assessed VR-based intervention as being effective as traditional treatment. On the other hand, 2 of the 21 analyzed studies [39; 44] indicate no special benefits for VR intervention in comparison to standard therapy. These results indicate that new technologies used in rehabilitation could be equally effective in the improvement of specific physical function among elderly patients. However, the diversity in technologies used and research tools among included studies makes impossible to draw a clear conclusion that any intervention based on VR will be effective in the elderly in terms of improving physical function. Additionally, in the assessment of statistical significance of the results, many studies used only \(p\)-value to misinterpret the effectiveness of the application of the intervention. However, \(p\)-value only shows that an effect exists and does not reveal the size of the effect. In quantitative research, both \(p\)-value and size effect should be reported. Therefore, the lack of information on the size effect does not allow a full assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**First Author** & **Outcomes** & **Research Tools** & **Results** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON] et al. [45]} & Leg strength and endurance, balance, joint pain & 30\% CST, TUG, FRT, OLST with eyes & Both interventions improved balance, but only VR training improved FRT (\(p=0.021\)) in comparison with controls. \\  & Balance, to strength and endurance, aerobic capacity, daily number of steps & BBS, 30\% CST, GMWT, SENS & Both interventions improved physical outcomes, but there was no significant difference between the SCG and CG in measured outcomes. \\  & Gait analysis, single task walking and dual task walking, balance, leg strength and endurance, brain plasticity/brain volume & Stop length, step speed speed time, MTC by the Physiologic\({}^{\circ}\)S, SPP, SRT, MRI and VBM & No significant improvement between the SCG and CG in physical parameters and brain plasticity/volume (\(p>0.05\)) with the exception of an interaction effect in the 30 s chair test (component of SPT) (\(F1\)) (\(5.0\%\), \(0.024\%\), \(0.01\%\)) & \\  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON] et al. [42]} & Balance, mobility, physical activity, falls & BBS, TUC, PASE, Short FRES-L FRAT including VSA pain and VAS fatigue & BBS, TUC, PASE, Short FRES-L FRAT including VSA pain and VAS fatigue \\  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON] et al. [40]} & Gait analysis & The GAIT Up system & Both interventions presented significant improvements in single and motor gait performance and inhibition, but only VR improved cognitive dual-task gait (\(p=0.003\)). \\  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{[PERSON] et al. [41]} & Balance, risk of falling, muscle strength, risk of falling, perception of exercise effort & BBS, TUG, TUC-ego, STSTS, HGS, FES-L, Borg CR-10 & BBS, TUC, TUC-ego, STSTS, HGS, FES-