Skip to main content
. 2025 May 30;13:e69510. doi: 10.2196/69510

Table 6.

Risk of bias and study limitations.

Study Risk-of-bias assessment Risk-of-bias findings Limitations
Tabak et al [8], 2014 NRa Moderate risk (selection and attrition biases) Small sample, high dropout (86% in CGb), and low exercise adherence (21%)
Mazzoleni et al [14], 2014 NR Moderate risk (small sample size and lack of blinding) Small sample, short duration, and lack of long-term follow-up
Kotrach et al [15], 2015 NR Moderate risk (small sample size and preliminary data) Small sample size, lack of long-term follow-up, and exclusion due to language barriers
Hoaas et al [12], 2016 NR Moderate risk (small sample size) Small sample size and seasonal effects on adherence
LeGear et al [16], 2016 NR Moderate risk (small sample size and short duration) Small sample size, lack of long-term follow-up, and supervision needed for safe exercise
Liu et al [17], 2016 NR Moderate risk (lack of randomization and single-site study) Small sample size, lack of long-term follow-up, monocentric, and limited applicability to patients classified as GOLDc stage 4
Bamidis et al [18], 2017 Not assessed in early stages of project Risk of bias expected due to self-reported data and social desirability No long-term results yet; potential for socioeconomic and geographic disparities in outcomes
Burkow et al [19], 2018 NR Low generalizability due to small sample size and bias from prior rehabilitation experience Small sample size, self-reported activity data, and lack of a CG
De Las Heras et al [20], 2018 NR Moderate risk (small sample size and subjective feedback) Small sample size and lack of long-term follow-up; only Nordic countries involved
Parent et al [21], 2018 NR Moderate risk (small sample size; single session) Short study duration, small sample size, and lack of long-term follow-up
Rutkowski et al [22], 2019 NR Moderate risk (short intervention duration) Short duration, lack of long-term follow-up, and no blinding of participants
Sutanto et al [23], 2019 NR Moderate risk (small sample size) Small sample size, unblinded study, and lack of intensity monitoring for the Wii exercises
Jung et al [13], 2020 NR Moderate risk (small sample size and acknowledged limitations) Small sample size and limited generalizability
Rutkowski et al [11], 2020 NR Low risk (structured randomization and CG) Short duration (2 wk); only patients classified as GOLD stages 2 and 3 included
Tu et al [24], 2020 NR (demonstration phase) NR Small-scale demonstration, short duration, and lack of long-term data
Rutkowski et al [9], 2021 Assessor-blinded RCTd with controlled randomization (low risk of bias) Low risk (structured randomization and CG) Short duration; only hospital based
Simmich et al [25], 2021 NR Low risk (small sample size and self-reported data) Lack of generalizability due to the small sample size and limited geographic representation
Simmich et al [26], 2021 NR Possible bias due to the involvement of the EGe in co-design Small sample size, short trial duration, Fitbit issues, and lack of notifications in the game
Baxter et al [27], 2022 NR Low risk (randomization and crossover design) Small sample, short session duration, and lack of clinical participants
Oberschmidt et al [28], 2022 NR Some dropouts due to exacerbation but not directly related to intervention Small sample size, dropouts after 12 wk, and occasional technical issues
Finkelstein et al [29], 2023 NR Low risk (all participants completed the tasks without significant issues) Small sample size; lack of long-term follow-up
Gabriel et al [30], 2023 NR Low risk (comprehensive task completion by all participants) Small sample size, no CG, and lack of long-term follow-up
Gabriel et al [31], 2023 NR Low risk (most participants completed the tasks easily) Small sample size, short duration, and lack of long-term follow-up
Pancini et al [32], 2023 NR (planned study) NR (study pending implementation) Small sample size; short intervention duration
Pardos et al [33], 2023 NR (pilot) NR Exclusion of factors such as nutrition, smoking, and drinking; system still in development
Colombo et al [34], 2024 NR Low risk (high adherence and positive outcomes) Small sample size; no CG
Jin et al [35], 2024 NR Low risk (group similarity and controlled environment) Lack of long-term adherence tracking; reliance on self-report
Kizmaz et al [36], 2024 NR Likely low risk, given the blinded evaluator and randomized design No objective assessment of cybersickness or patient satisfaction; no third group for comparison with usual care
McAnirlin et al [10], 2024 NR NR Small sample size, no CG, and exploratory design

aNR: not reported.

bCG: control group.

cGOLD: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease.

dRCT: randomized controlled trial.

eEG: experimental group.