Table 3.

Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review.

Study	Participants (N)	Age (years)	Design	Evaluation	Outcomes	Measuring Instrument	Results
Del Din et al. (2020) [37]	128	71.68 ± 6.4	CG = 62 EG = 66	T0 = Baseline T1 = 6 wk	Number of falls	FRA	The FRA index decreased significantly in the CG and EG (p ≤ 0.035).
Pelosin et al. (2020) [38]	24	71.9 ± 4.1	CG = 14 EG = 10	T0 = Baseline T1 = 6 w kT2 = 12 wk	Number of falls	Schedule	The EG and CG showed a significant time training interaction (F 1.33 = 7.39, p = 0.012). EG = TM + VR reduced the number of falls (p < 0.001) with respect to CG = TM.
Santos et al. (2019) [39]	45	64.3 ± 8.5	CG = 15 EG1 = 15 EG2 = 15	T0 = Baseline T1 = 8 wk	Balance Risk of falls	BBS TUG	No statistically significant differences between GG, EG1 and EG2 with respect to BBS (p = 0.968) and TUG (p = 0.824).
							Significant differences found in pre and post intervention analyses of all outcomes.
							The effect size was larger for EG2 = NW + CE in all functional tests.
Feng et al. (2019) [40]	28	66.93 ± 4.64 67.47 ± 4.79	CG = 14 EG = 14	T0 = Baseline T1 = 12 wk	Balance Risk of falls	BBS TUG	After Tx, BBS and TUG scores improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.005). The EG = VR showed improved performance compared to the CG = CP on BBS, TUG and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (p < 0.005).
Gandolfi et al. (2017) [41]	76	69.84 ± 9.41 67.45 ± 7.18	CG = 38 EG = 38	T0 = Baseline T1 = 7 wk T2 = 11 wk	Balance Balance confidence activities Number of falls	BBS ABC Self-reported	There were significant differences between the groups, with the EG = home VR showing improvement in the BBS (p = 0.04).
							No significant differences between the groups for ABC and number of falls. Significant pre/post-test differences in EG = home VR with respect to the number of falls (p = 0.034).
Mirelman et al. (2016) [42]	130	73 ± 5 74 ± 5	CG = 64 EG = 66	T0 = Baseline T1 = 6 wk T2 = 30 wk	Number of falls	Incidence	The number of falls was lower in the EG = TM + VR than in the CG = TM in patients diagnosed with Parkinson’s (p = 0.001).
Negrini et al. (2016) [43]	27	67 ± 9 66 ± 8	CG = 11 EG = 16	T0 = Baseline T1 = 5 wk T2 = 9 wk	Balance Risk of falls	BBS TT FRA	The post hoc analysis showed significant differences between groups in the pre-test, post-test and follow-up (p < 0.02) on BBS and FRA, but no significant difference between the pre-test and follow-up in the Tinetti test (p = 0.2) in the EG.
							No significant differences between the intervention groups (p> 0.005).
							The effect size was large in BBS (d = 0.9); moderate in TT (d = 0.4) and small in FRA (d < 0.2) after the intervention.
Yang et al. (2016) [44]	23	72.5 ± 8.4 75.4 ± 6.3	CG = 12 EG = 11	T0 = Baseline T1 = 6 wk T2 = 8 wk	Balance Risk of falls	BBS TUG	Both groups obtained better results in relation to BBS and TUG after the intervention and at 8 weeks of follow-up (p < 0.001).
							No significant differences between the groups after the test and at 8 weeks of follow-up.
Lee et al. (2015) [45]	20	70.1 ± 3.3 68.4 ± 2.9	CG = 10 EG = 10	T0 = Baseline T1 = 6 wk	Balance	BBS	After 6 wk of Tx, BBS improved significantly in the EG (46.0 ± 1.3 to 48.1 ± 3.0; p < 0.05), but showed no significant improvement in the CG (45.0 ± 1.3 to 45.4 ± 1.5; p > 0.05).
Liao et al. (2015) [46]	36	64.6 ± 8.6 65.1 ± 6.7 67.3 ± 7.1	CG = 12 EG1 = 12 EG2 = 12	T0 = Baseline T1 = 6 wk T2 = 10 wk	Dynamic balance Sensory organization Risk of fallsNumber of falls	MV/SOT TUG FES-I	EG1 and EG2 showed significant improvements in MV/SOT compared to the CG after treatment and at 1 month of follow-up (p < 0.001).
							EG1 and EG2 showed significant improvements compared to the CG relative to follow-up (p < 0.001).
							No significant differences between EG1 and EG2 relative to FES-I.
							EG2 showed significant improvements in SOT, TUG, FES-I with respect to CG.

ABC = Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale; BBS = Berg balance scale; CE = Conventional exercise; CG = Control group; CP = Conventional physiotherapy; EG = Experimental group; FES = Functional electrical stimulation; FES-I = Falls Efficacy Scale; FPE = Fall prevention education; FRA = fall rates relative to activity exposure index; HE = Healthy elderly patients; HT = Home training; IF = Idiopathic falls; MCI = Mild cognitive impairment; MV = Dynamic balance test; NDT = Neurodevelopmental treatment; NW = Nintendo Wii Fit; OA = Osteoarthritis; TM = Treadmill; TT = Tinetti Test; TUG = Timed Up and Go; Tx = Treatment; SIBT = Sensory Integration Balance Training; SOT = Sensory organization test; VR = virtual reality; WK = Weeks.