Objective: To compare the effectiveness of Kinect Adventures games versus conventional physiotherapy to improve postural control (PC), gait, cardiorespiratory fitness, and cognition of the elderly. In addition, we evaluated the safety, acceptability, and adherence to the interventions. Materials and Methods: The study was a randomized clinical trial in which 46 elderly individuals were selected, mean age 69.3 (5.34) years. Participants were allocated to the Kinect Adventures Training Group (KATG) or the Conventional Physical Therapy Group (CPTG), 23 individuals in each group. Participants of both groups participated in 14 training sessions lasting 1 hour each, twice a week. The KATG practiced four Kinect Adventures games. The CPTG participated in conventional physiotherapy. The primary outcome was PC: Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), and secondary outcomes were gait: Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), cardiorespiratory fitness: Six-minute step test (6MST), and cognition: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Acceptability was assessed through a questionnaire created by the researchers themselves. Adherence was assessed by the “frequency of the number of elderly individuals who completed the interventions and safety through the presence of adverse effects.” Participants were assessed immediately pre- and posttreatment and fourth week after the end of the treatment. Statistical analysis was done through repeated-measures analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test. Results: Both groups presented a significant improvement in the PC (Mini-BEST), gait (FGA), and cognition (MoCA) posttreatment that was maintained at fourth week after treatment (post hoc Tukey test; P < 0.05). Regarding cardiorespiratory fitness (6MST), the KATG presented improvement posttreatment and maintenance of the results in the fourth week after treatment. CPTG showed improvement only in fourth week after treatment (post hoc Tukey tests; P < 0.05). Regarding the acceptability, the questionnaire showed that both groups were satisfied with regard to the proposed interventions. There was 91% adherence in both training sessions. Regarding the safety, 34% and 26% of the individuals of the KATG and CPTG, respectively, presented adverse effects of delayed muscle pain in the lower limbs after the first session only. Conclusion: There were no significant differences between the KATG and CPTG; both interventions provided positive effects on PC, gait, cardiorespiratory fitness, and cognition of the elderly.

Background and Purpose: In any given year, 28% to 35% of older adults experience falls. In nursing home environments, the annual rate of falls increases to 30% to 50%. Our objective was to verify and compare the reliability, validity, and ability to identify falls of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest for older adults who live in nursing homes. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. Older adults (n = 49; aged 62-90 years; mean = 77.8; standard deviation = 7.2) were recruited from a nonprofit nursing home. All participants were assessed by 2 physiotherapists using the BBS, BESTest, Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest. The interrater and test-retest (7-14 days) reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs [2, 1]). Minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level were established. To analyze each test's ability to identify fall status, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, whose statistical significance we verified using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The diagnostic likelihood ratios (positive and negative) and 95% CI were used to verify posttest probability. We used Fagan's nomogram to show the posttest probability of each balance test. Validity was assessed using kappa coefficients and the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Results: Interrater and test-retest reliability for the total scores were good to excellent across all 4 tests (ICC interrater value = 0.992-0.994 and ICC test-retest value = 0.886-0.945). All tests were also able to identify fall status (AUC = 0.712-0.762) and were in good agreement with each other (kappa coefficient for individuals with fall risk = 0.679-0.957 and individuals with no fall risk = 0.135-0.143; PABAK = 83.7%-98%). Conclusion: All balance tests presented similar reliability, reproducibility, and validity. This suggests that any of these tests can be used in clinical practice. However, the Brief-BESTest is the quickest and easiest test to perform.