## 4 Discussion  
The aim of the present review was to determine the effectiveness of a rehabilitation accommodating virtual reality and exergames in view of fall prevention among elderly people. The progress of technology resulted in the utilization of virtual reality in medical appliances [49]. Virtual reality techniques have been widely adopted in other fields of medicine, including specialist training like simulations of surgical procedures [50], pain management [51; 52], treatment of phobias or anxiety [53], and diagnostics [54]. Growing interest regarding virtual reality appliances and a wide variety of available software applications and hardware devices resulted in wider adoption in rehabilitation in view of making the rehabilitation more attractive, reducing total costs related to human and infrastructural factors (telerehabilitation), as well as considering maximizing the effects of traditional physiotherapeutic proceedings. Limitations of motor and cognitive functions, aggravating with age, result in a vast representation of elderly people among patients who are a subject of rehabilitation [55]. Nowadays, virtual reality rehabilitation is considered as an intervention targeted at children [56], adolescents and adults [57], athletes [58], as well as the elderly. However, varying motivation was observed among the age groups--children and adolescents are motivated by a challenging part of exergames like competition and gaining rewards/points in a game. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**First Author** & **EC * & **RA** & **CA** & **BC** & **BS** & **BT** & **BA** & **AF** & **ITA** & **BGC** & **PEaV** & **Total Score** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [45] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & \(-\) & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [28] & + & + & + & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [39] & + & + & + & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & 5/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [42] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [40] & + & + & + & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [41] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & \(-\) & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [43] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & 4/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [33] & + & + & + & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & + & + & 7/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [44] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & + & 5/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [29] & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [34] & + & + & + & + & \(-\) & \(+\) & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [31] & + & + & + & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & \(-\) & + & + & 7/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [46] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & \(-\) & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [38] & + & + & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & + & + & + & 8/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [35] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [32] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & 4/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [47] & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & + & 6/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [30] & + & + & + & \(+\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & + & + & + & 7/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [37] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & + & 4/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [48] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & + & + & 5/10 \\ [PERSON] et al. [36] & + & + & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & + & \(-\) & + & + & 5/10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Eligibility criteria it is not included in the total score; EC, Eligibility criteria; RA, Random allocation; CA, Concealed allocation; BC, Baseline comparability; BS, Blind subjects; BT, Blind therapists; BA, Blind assessors; AF, Adequate follow-up; ITA, Intention-to-treat analysis; BGC, Between-group comparisons; PEaV, Point Estimates and Variability; (1 point: “\(*\)”; 0 point: “\(--\)”).  
\end{table}