Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Exercise for improving balance in older people

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 09 noviembre 2011
Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Ir a:

Boshuizen 2005 {published data only}

Boshuizen HC, Stemmerik L, Westhoff MH, Hopman‐Rock M. The effects of physical therapists' guidance on improvement in a strength‐training program for the frail elderly. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2005;13(1):5‐22.

Brouwer 2003 {published data only}

Brouwer BJ, Walker C, Rydahl SJ, Culham EG. Reducing fear of falling in seniors through education and activity programs: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003;51(6):829‐34.

Buchner 1997a {published data only}

Buchner DM, Cress ME, De Lateur BJ, Esselman PC, Margherita AJ, Price R, et al. The effect of strength and endurance training on gait, balance, fall risk, and health services use in community‐living older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 1997;52A(4):M218‐24.

Buchner 1997b {published data only}

Buchner DM, Cress ME, De Lateur BJ, Esselman PC, Margherita AJ, Price R, et al. A comparison of the effects of three types of endurance training on balance and other fall risk factors in older adults. Aging‐Clinical & Experimental Research 1997;9(1‐2):112‐9.

Cress 1999 {published data only}

Cress ME, Buchner DM, Questad KA, Esselman PC, De Lateur BJ, Schwartz RS. Exercise: effects on physical functional performance in independent older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 1999;54A(5):M242‐8.

Crilly 1989 {published data only}

Crilly RG, Willems DA, Trenholm KJ, Hayes KC, Delaquerriere‐Richardson LF. Effect of exercise on postural sway in the elderly. Gerontology 1989;35(2‐3):137‐43.

Islam 2004 {published data only}

Islam MM, Nasu E, Rogers ME, Koizumi D, Rogers NL, Takeshima N. Effects of combined sensory and muscular training on balance in Japanese older adults. Preventative Medicine 2004;39(6):1148‐55.

Jessup 2003 {published data only}

Jessup JV, Horne C, Vishen RK, Wheeler D. Effects of exercise on bone density, balance, and self‐efficacy in older women. Biological Research for Nursing 2003;4(3):171‐80.

Johansson 1991 {published data only}

Johansson G, Jarnlo G. Balance training in 70‐year‐old women. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 1991;7(2):121‐5.

Krebs 1998 {published data only}

Krebs DE, Jette AM, Assmann SF. Moderate exercise improves gait stability in disabled elders. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1998;79(12):1489‐95.

Lichtenstein 1989 {published data only}

Lichtenstein MJ, Shields SL, Shiavi RG, Burger MC. Exercise and balance in aged women: a pilot controlled clinical trial. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1989;70(2):138‐43.

Lord 1995 {published data only}

Lord S, Ward J, Williams P, Zivanovic E. The effects of a community exercise program on fracture risk factors in older women. Osteoporosis International 1996;6(5):361‐7.
Lord SR, Ward JA, Williams P, Strudwick M. The effect of a 12‐month exercise trial on balance, strength, and falls in older women: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1995;43(11):1198‐206.
Lord SR, Ward JA, Williams P. Exercise effect of dynamic stability in older women: a randomized controlled trial.. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1996;77(3):232‐236.

Lord 2003 {published data only}

Lord SR, Castell S, Corcoran J, Dayhew J, Matters B, Shan A, et al. The effect of group exercise on physical functioning and falls in frail older people living in retirement villages: a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003;51(12):1685‐92.

Lord 2005 {published data only}

Lord SR, Tiedemann A, Chapman K, Munro B, Murray SM, Sherrington C. The effect of an individualized fall prevention program on fall risk and falls in older people: a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2005;53(8):1296‐304.

MacRae 1994 {published data only}

MacRae PG, Feltner ME, Reinsch S. A 1‐year exercise program for older women: Effects on falls, injuries, and physical performance. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 1994;2(2):127‐145.

McGarry 2001 {published and unpublished data}

McGarry ST, McGuire SK, Magee TM, Bethard HK, FlomMeland CK. The effects of "The Get Off Your Rocker" exercise class on balance. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy 2001;24(3):21‐5.

McMurdo 1993 {published data only}

McMurdo ME, Rennie L. A controlled trial of exercise by residents of old people's homes. Age & Ageing 1993;22(1):11‐5.

Nelson 2004 {published data only}

Nelson ME, Layne JE, Bernstein MJ, Nuernberger A, Castaneda C, Kaliton D, et al. The effects of multidimensional home‐based exercise on functional performance in elderly people. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2004;59(2):154‐60.

Okumiya 1996 {published data only}

Okumiya K, Matsubayashi K, Wada T, Kimura S, Doi Y, Ozawa T. Effects of exercise on neurobehavioral function in community‐dwelling older people more than 75 years of age. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1996;44(5):569‐72.

Paillard 2004 {published data only}

Paillard T, Lafont C, Costes‐Salon M, Rivière D, Dupui P. Effects of brisk walking on static and dynamic balance, locomotion, body composition, and aerobic capacity in ageing healthy active men. International Journal of Sports Medicine 2004;25(7):539‐546.

Ramsbottom 2004 {published data only}

Ramsbottom R, Ambler A, Potter J, Jordan B, Nevill A, Williams C. The effect of 6 months training on leg power, balance, and functional mobility of independently living adults over 70 years old. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2004;12(4):497‐510.

Reinsch 1992 {published data only}

Reinsch S, MacRae P, Lachenbruch P, & Tobis J. Attempts to prevent falls and injury: a prospective community study. Gerontologist 1992;32(4):450‐6.

Rooks 1997a {published data only}

Rooks DS, Kiel DP, Parsons C, Hayes WC. Self‐paced resistance training and walking exercise in community‐dwelling older adults: Effects on neuromotor performance. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 1997;52(3):M161‐8.

Rubenstein 2000 {published data only}

Rubenstein LZ, Josephson KR, Trueblood PR, Loy S, Harker JO, Pietruszka FM, et al. Effects of a group exercise program on strength, mobility, and falls among fall‐prone elderly men. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2000;55(6):M317‐21.

Sauvage 1992 {published data only}

Sauvage LR, Myklebust BM, CrowPan J, Novak S, Millington P, Hoffman, et al. A clinical trial of strengthening and aerobic exercise to improve gait and balance in elderly male nursing home residents. American Journal Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1992;71(6):333‐42.

Schoenfelder 2004 {published data only}

Schoenfelder DP, Rubenstein LM. An exercise program to improve fall‐related outcomes in elderly nursing home residents. Applied Nursing Research 2004;17(1):21‐31.

Shigematsu 2002 {published data only}

Shigematsu R, Chang M, Yabushita N, Sakai T, Nakagaichi M, Nho H, et al. Dance‐based aerobic exercise may improve indices of falling risk in older women. Age & Ageing 2002;31(4):261‐6.

Shimada 2004 {published and unpublished data}

Shimada H, Obuchi S, Furuna T, Suzuki T. New intervention program for preventing falls among frail elderly people: the effects of perturbed walking exercise using a bilateral separated treadmill. American Journal Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2004;83(7):493‐9.

Sihvonen 2004 {published data only}

Sihvonen S, Sipila S, Taskinen S, Era P. Fall incidence in frail older women after individualized visual feedback‐based balance training. Gerontology 2004;50(6):411‐6.
Sihvonen SE, Sipila S, Era PA. Changes in postural balance in frail elderly women during a 4‐week visual feedback training: a randomized controlled trial. Gerontology 2004;50(2):87‐95.

Suzuki 2004 {published and unpublished data}

Suzuki T, Kim H, Yoshida H, Ishizaki T. Randomized controlled trial of exercise intervention for the prevention of falls in community‐dwelling elderly Japanese women. Journal of Bone & Mineral Metabolism 2004;22(6):602‐11.

Wolf 1997 {published data only}

Wolf SL, Barnhart HX, Ellison GL, Coogler CE. The effect of Tai Chi Quan and computerized balance training on postural stability in older subjects. Physical Therapy 1997;77(4):371‐81.
Wolf SL, Kutner NG, Green RC, McNeely E. The Atlanta FICSIT study: Two exercise interventions to reduce frailty in elders. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993;41(3):329‐32.

Wolf 2001 {published data only}

Wolf B, Feys H, De W, Van der Meer J, Noom M, Aufdemkampe G, et al. Effect of a physical therapeutic intervention for balance problems in the elderly: a single‐blind, randomized, controlled multicentre trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001;15(6):624‐36.

Wolfson 1996 {published data only}

Wolfson L, Whipple R, Derby C, Judge J, King M, Amerman P, et al. Balance and strength training in older adults: intervention gains and Tai Chi maintenance. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1996;44(5):498‐506.
Wolfson L, Whipple R, Judge J, Amerman P, Derby C, King M. Training balance and strength in the elderly to improve function. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993;41(3):341‐3.

Zhang 2006 {published data only}

Zhang JG, Ishikawa‐Takata K, Yamazaki H, Morita T, Ohta T. The effects of Tai Chi Chuan on physiological function and fear of falling in the less robust elderly: An intervention study for preventing falls. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 2006;42(2):107‐16.

References to studies excluded from this review

Ir a:

Alexander 2001a {published data only}

Alexander NB, Galecki AT, Grenier ML, Nyquist LV, Hofmeyer MR, Grunawalt JC, et al. Task‐specific resistance training to improve the ability of activities of daily living‐impaired older adults to rise from a bed and from a chair. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001;49(11):1418‐27.

Alexander 2001b {published data only}

Alexander NB, Gross MM, Medell JL, Hofmeyer MR. Effects of functional ability and training on chair‐rise biomechanics in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2001;56(9):M538‐47.

Allen 1999 {published data only}

Allen A, Simpson JM. A primary care‐based fall prevention programme. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 1999;15(2):121‐33.

Anonymous 2002 {published data only}

Anonymous. Balance is best to prevent falls in the elderly. Medicine Today 2002;3(10):7.

Au‐Yeung 2002 {published data only}

Au‐Yeung SSY, Ho HPY, Lai JWC, Lau RWK, Wong AYL, Lau SK. Did mobility and balance of residents living in private old age homes improve after a mobility exercise programme? A pilot study. Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal 2002;20:16‐21.

Ballard 2004 {published data only}

Ballard JE, McFarland C, Wallace LS, Holiday DB, Roberson G. The effect of 15 weeks of exercise on balance, leg strength, and reduction in falls in 40 women aged 65 to 89 years. Journal of the American Medical Womens Association 2004;59(4):255‐61.

Barnett 2003 {published data only}

Barnett A, Smith B, Lord SR, Williams M, Baumand A. Community‐based group exercise improves balance and reduces falls in at‐risk older people: A randomised controlled trial. Age & Ageing 2003;32(4):407‐14.

Barrett 2002 {published data only}

Barrett C, Smerdely P. A comparison of community‐based resistance exercise and flexibility exercise for seniors. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2002;48(3):215‐9.

Bean 2004 {published data only}

Bean JF, Herman S, Kiely DK, Frey IC, Leveille SG, Fielding RA, et al. Increased Velocity Exercise Specific to Task (InVEST) training: a pilot study exploring effects on leg power, balance, and mobility in community‐dwelling older women. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004;52(5):799‐804.

Binder 2002 {published data only}

Binder EF, Schechtman KB, Ehsani AA, StegerMay K, Brown M, Sinacore DR, et al. Effects of exercise training on frailty in community‐dwelling older adults: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2002;50(12):1921‐8.

Bonnefoy 2003 {published data only}

Bonnefoy M, Cornu C, Normand S, Boutitie F, Bugnard F, Rahmani A, et al. The effects of exercise and protein‐energy supplements on body composition and muscle function in frail elderly individuals: a long‐term controlled randomised study. British Journal of Nutrition 2003;89(5):731‐8.

Brown 2000 {published data only}

Brown M, Sinacore DR, Ehsani AA, Binder EF, Holloszy JO, Kohrt WM. Low‐intensity exercise as a modifier of physical frailty in older adults. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2000;81(7):960‐5.

Bruyere 2005 {published data only}

Bruyere O, Wuidart M, Di P, Gourlay M, Ethgen O, Richy F, et al. Controlled whole body vibration to decrease fall risk and improve health‐related quality of life of nursing home residents. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2005;86(2):303‐7.

Buchner 1993 {published data only}

Buchner DM, Cress ME, Wagner EH, De Lateur BJ, Price R, Abrass IB. The Seattle FICSIT/MoveIt study: the effect of exercise on gait and balance in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993;41(3):321‐5.

Campbell 1999 {published data only}

Campbell AJ, Robertson MC, Gardner MM, Norton RN, Buchner DM. Falls prevention over 2 years: a randomized controlled trial in women 80 years and older. Age & Ageing 1999;28(6):513‐8.

Cornillon 2002 {published data only}

Cornillon E, Blanchon M, Ramboatsisetraina P, Braize C, Beauchet O, Dubost V, et al. Effectiveness of falls prevention strategies for elderly subjects who live in the community with performance assessment of physical activities (before‐after). Annales de Readaptation et de Medecine Physique 2002;45(9):493‐504.

Day 2002 {published data only}

Day L, Fildes B, Gordon I, Fitzharris M, Flamer H, Lord S. Randomised factorial trial of falls prevention among older people living in their own homes. BMJ 2002;325(7356):128.

De Vreede 2004 {published data only}

De Vreede PL, Samson MM, Van Meeteren NL, Van der Bom JG, Duursma SA, Verhaar HJ. Functional tasks exercise versus resistance exercise to improve daily function in older women: a feasibility study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004;85(12):1952‐61.

Devereux 2005 {published data only}

Devereux K, Robertson D, Briffa NK. Effects of a water‐based program on women 65 years and over: a randomised controlled trial. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2005;51(2):102‐8.

DeVito 2003 {published data only}

DeVito CA, Morgan RO, Duque M, Abdel‐Moty E, Virnig BA. Physical performance effects of low‐intensity exercise among clinically defined high‐risk elders. Gerontology 2003;49(3):146‐54.

Dyer 2004 {published data only}

Dyer CAE, Taylor GJ, Reed M, Dyer CA, Robertson DR, Harrington R. Falls prevention in residential care homes: a randomised controlled trial. Age & Ageing 2004;33(6):596‐602.

Earles 2001 {published data only}

Earles DR, Judge JO, Gunnarsson OT. Velocity training induces power‐specific adaptations in highly functioning older adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001;82(7):872‐8.

Fiatarone 1993 {published data only}

Fiatarone MA, O'Neill EF, Doyle N, Clements KM, Roberts SB, Kehayias JJ, et al. The Boston FICSIT study: the effects of resistance training and nutritional supplementation on physical frailty in the oldest old. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993;41(3):333‐7.

Gill 2002 {published data only}

Gill TM, Baker DI, Gottschalk M, Peduzzi PN, Allore H, Byers A. A program to prevent functional decline in physically frail, elderly persons who live at home. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;347(14):1068‐74.

Gras 2004 {published data only}

Gras LZ, Levangie PK, GoodwinSegal M, Lawrence DA. A comparison of hip versus ankle exercises in elders and the influence on balance and gait. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy 2004;27(2):39‐46.

Greendale 2000 {published data only}

Greendale GA, Salem GJ, Young JT, Damesyn M, Marion M, Wang M, et al. A randomized trial of weighted vest use in ambulatory older adults: strengths, performance, and quality of life outcomes. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2000;48(3):305‐11.

Hauer 2003 {published data only}

Hauer K, Pfisterer M, Schuler M, Bartsch P, Oster P. Two years later: a prospective long‐term follow‐up of a training intervention in geriatric patients with a history of severe falls. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2003;84(10):1426‐32.

Helbostad 2004a {published data only}

Helbostad JL, Moe‐Nilssen R, Sletvold O. Comparison of two types of exercise regimes on selected functional abilities for community‐dwelling elderly at risk of falling. XVI th Conference of the International Society for Postural and Gait Research; 2003 Mar 23‐27; New South Wales (Australia). www.powmri.edu.au/ispg2003/ISPG2003/ISPG2003.htm.
Helbostad JL, Sletvold O, MoeNilssen R. Home training with and without additional group training in physically frail old people living at home: effect on health‐related quality of life and ambulation. Clinical Rehabilitation 2004;18(5):498‐508.

Helbostad 2004b {published data only}

Helbostad JL, Sletvold O, Moe‐Nilssen R. Effects of home exercises and group training on functional abilities in home‐dwelling older persons with mobility and balance problems. A randomized study. Aging‐Clinical & Experimental Research 2004;16(2):113‐21.

Hinman 2002 {published data only}

Hinman MR. Comparison of two short‐term balance training programs for community‐dwelling older adults. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy 2002;25(3):10‐15, 20.

Hornbrook 1993 {published data only}

Hornbrook MC, Stevens VJ, Wingfield DJ. Seniors' Program for Injury Control and Education. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993;41(3):309‐14.

Hu 1994 {published data only}

Hu M, Woollacott MH. Multisensory training of standing balance in older adults: I. Postural stability and one‐leg stance balance. Journal of Gerontology 1994;49(2):M52‐61.

Jones 1992 {published data only}

Jones CJ, Robichaux J, Williams P, Rikli R. The effects of a 16‐week exercise program on the dynamic balance of older adults. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Gerontology 1992;14(2):165‐82.

Judge 1993a {published data only}

Judge JO, Lindsey C, Underwood M, Winsemius D. Balance improvements in older women: effects of exercise training... including commentary by Keshner EA with author response. Physical Therapy 1993;73(4):254‐265.

Judge 1993b {published data only}

Judge JO, Underwood M, Gennosa T. Exercise to improve gait velocity in older persons. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1993;74(4):400‐6.

Judge 1994 {published data only}

Judge JO, Whipple RH, Wolfson LI. Effects of resistive and balance exercises on isokinetic strength in older persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1994;42(9):937‐46.

King 2002 {published data only}

King MB, Whipple RH, Gruman CA, Judge JO, Schmidt JA, Wolfson LI. The performance enhancement project: Improving physical performance in older persons. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2002;83(8):1060‐9.

Kovacs 2004 {published data only}

Kovacs C, Williams K. Sensory training effects on obstacle avoidance in healthy older adults. Physical Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 2004;22(3):1‐17.

Kutner 1997 {published data only}

Kutner NG, Barnhart H, Wolf SL, McNeely E, Xu T. Self‐report benefits of Tai Chi practice by older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series B‐Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences 1997;52B(5):P242‐6.

LaStayo 2003 {published data only}

LaStayo PC, Ewy GA, Pierotti DD, Johns RK, Lindstedt S. The positive effects of negative work: increased muscle strength and decreased fall risk in a frail elderly population. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2003;58(5):M419‐24.

Latham 2001 {published data only}

Latham NK, Stretton C, Ronald M. Progressive resistance strength training in hospitalised older people: a preliminary investigation. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy 2001;29(2):41‐8.

Lazowski 1999 {published data only}

Lazowski DA, Ecclestone NA, Myers AM, Paterson DH, Tudor Locke C, Fitzgerald C, et al. A randomized outcome evaluation of group exercise programs in long‐term care institutions. Journal of Gerontology 1999;54(12):M621‐8.

Li 2002 {published data only}

Li F, Fisher KJ, Harmer P, Mcauley E. Delineating the impact of Tai Chi training on physical function among the elderly. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002;23(2 Suppl):92‐7.

Li 2005a {published data only}

Li F, Fisher KJ, Harmer P. Improving physical function and blood pressure in older adults through cobblestone mat walking: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2005;53(8):1305‐12.

Li 2005b {published data only}

Li F, Harmer P, Fisher KJ, Mcauley E, Chaumeton N, Eckstrom E, et al. Tai Chi and fall reductions in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2005;60(2):187‐94.
Li F, Harmer P, Fisher KJ, Mcauley E. Tai Chi: Improving functional balance and predicting subsequent falls in older persons. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2004;36(12):2046‐52.

Lindemann 2004 {published data only}

Lindemann U, Rupp K, Muche R, Nikolaus T, Becker C. Improving balance by improving motor skills. Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie 2004;37(1):20‐6.

Liu‐Ambrose 2004 {published data only}

Liu‐Ambrose T, Khan KM, Eng JJ, Lord SR, McKay HA. Balance confidence improves with resistance or agility training. Increase is not correlated with objective changes in fall risk and physical abilities. Gerontology 2004;50(6):373‐82.

Marigold 2005 {published data only}

Marigold DS, Eng JJ, Dawson AS, Inglis JT, Harris, Gylfadottir S. Exercise leads to faster postural reflexes, improved balance and mobility, and fewer falls in older persons with chronic stroke. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2005;53(3):416‐23.

McMurdo 1994 {published data only}

McMurdo ME, Rennie LM. Improvements in quadriceps strength with regular seated exercise in the institutionalized elderly. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1994;75(5):600‐3.

McMurdo 2000 {published data only}

McMurdo M, Millar A, Daly F. A randomized controlled trial of fall prevention strategies in old peoples' homes. Gerontology 2000;46(2):83‐7.

Means 1996 {published data only}

Means KM, Rodell DE, O'Sullivan PS, Cranford LA. Rehabilitation of elderly fallers: pilot study of a low to moderate intensity exercise program. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1996;77(10):1030‐6.

Means 2005 {published data only}

Means KM, Rodell DE, O'Sullivan PS. Balance, mobility, and falls among community‐dwelling elderly persons: effects of a rehabilitation exercise program. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2005;84(4):238‐50.

Messier 2000 {published data only}

Messier SP, Royer TD, Craven TE, O'Toole ML, Burns R, Ettinger WH. Long‐term exercise and its effect on balance in older, osteoarthritic adults: Results from the fitness, arthritis, and seniors trial (FAST). Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2000;48(2):131‐8.

Morgan 2004 {published data only}

Morgan RO, Virnig BA, Duque M, Abdel‐Moty E, deVito CA. Low‐intensity exercise and reduction of the risk for falls among at‐risk elders. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2004;59(10):1062‐7.

Mulrow 1994 {published data only}

Mulrow CD, Gerety MB, Kanten D, Cornell JE, DeNino LA, Chiodo L, et al. A randomized trial of physical rehabilitation for very frail nursing home residents. JAMA 1994;271(7):519‐24.

Nitz 2004 {published data only}

Nitz JC, Choy NL. The efficacy of a specific balance‐strategy training programme for preventing falls among older people: A pilot randomised controlled trial. Age & Ageing 2004;33(1):52‐8.

Ourania 2003 {published data only}

Ourania M, Yvoni H, Christos K, Ionannis T. Effects of a physical activity program. The study of selected physical abilities among elderly women. Journal of Gerontological Nursing 2003;29(7):50‐5.

Paillard 2005 {published data only}

Paillard T, Lafont C, Soulat JM, Montoya R, Costes‐Salon MC, Dupui P. Short‐term effects of electrical stimulation superimposed on muscular voluntary contraction in postural control in elderly women. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2005;19(3):640‐6.

Prasansuk 2004 {published data only}

Prasansuk S, Siriyananda C, Nakorn AN, Atipas S, Chongvisal S. Balance disorders in the elderly and the benefit of balance exercise. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2004;87(10):1225‐33.

Ramsey 2003 {published data only}

Ramsey VK, Blasch BB, Kita A. Effects of mobility training on gait and balance. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 2003;97(11):720‐6.

Robbins 2001 {published data only}

Robbins JA. A home‐based, nurse‐delivered exercise program reduced falls and serious injuries in persons greater than or equal to 80 years of age. American College of Physicians Journal Club 2001;135(3):100.

Rooks 1997b {published data only}

Rooks DS, Ransil BJ, Hayes WC. Self‐paced exercise and neuromotor performance in community‐dwelling older adults. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 1997;5(2):135‐49.

Ryushi 2000 {published data only}

Ryushi T, Kumagai K, Hayase H, Abe T, Shibuya K, Ono A. Effect of resistive knee extension training on postural control measures in middle aged and elderly persons. Journal of Physiological Anthropology & Applied Human Science 2000;19(3):143‐9.

Shaughnessy 1998 {published data only}

Shaughnessy A. Can an in‐home exercise program decrease falls and injuries in elderly women?. Evidence Based Practice 1998;1(2):7, insert 2.

Shimada 2003 {published data only}

Shimada H, Uchiyama Y, Kakurai S. Specific effects of balance and gait exercises on physical function among the frail elderly. Clinical Rehabilitation 2003;17(5):472‐9.

Signorile 2002 {published data only}

Signorile JF, Carmel MP, Czaja SJ, Asfour SS, Morgan RO, Khalil TM, et al. Differential increases in average isokinetic power by specific muscle groups of older women due to variations in training and testing. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2002;57(10):M683‐90.

Simmons 1996 {published data only}

Simmons V, Hansen PD. Effectiveness of water exercise on postural mobility in the well elderly: An experimental study on balance enhancement. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 1996;51(5):M233‐8.

Simons 2006 {published data only}

Simons R, Andel R. The effects of resistance training and walking on functional fitness in advanced old age. Journal of Aging & Health 2006;18(1):91‐105.

Skelton 1999 {published data only}

Skelton DA, Dinan SM. Exercise for falls management: rationale for an exercise programme aimed at reducing postural instability. Physiotherapy Theory & Practice 1999;15(2):105‐20.

Sohng 2003 {published data only}

Sohng K, Moon J, Song H, Lee K, Kim Y. Fall prevention exercise program for fall risk factor reduction of the community‐dwelling elderly in Korea. Yonsei Medical Journal 2003;44(5):883‐91.

Steadman 2003 {published data only}

Steadman J, Donaldson N, Kalra L. A randomized controlled trial of an enhanced balance training program to improve mobility and reduce falls in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003;51(6):847‐52.

Steinberg 2000 {published data only}

Steinberg M, Cartwright C, Peel N, Williams G. A sustainable programme to prevent falls and near falls in community dwelling older people: results of a randomised trial [with consumer summary]. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2000;54(3):227‐32.

Szturm 1994 {published data only}

Szturm T, Ireland D, Lessing‐Turner M. Comparison of different exercise programs in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic peripheral vestibular dysfunction. Journal of Vestibular Research 1994;4(6):461‐79.

Timonen 2002 {published data only}

Timonen L, Rantanen T, Ryynanen OP, Taimela S, Timonen TE, Sulkava R. A randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation after hospitalization in frail older women: effects on strength, balance and mobility. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 2002;12(3):186‐92.

Tinetti 1994 {published data only}

Tinetti ME, Baker DI, McAvay G, Claus EB, Garrett P, Gottschalk M, et al. A multifactorial intervention to reduce the risk of falling among elderly people living in the community. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(13):821‐27.

Udani 1998 {published data only}

Udani JK, Ofman JJ. Tai Chi for the prevention of falls in the elderly. Integrative Medicine 1998;1(4):167‐9.

Verfaillie 1997 {published data only}

Verfaillie DF, Nichols JF, Turkel E, Hovell MF. Effects of resistance, balance, and gait training on reduction of risk factors leading to falls in elders. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 1997;5(3):213‐28.

Williams 2002 {published data only}

Williams K, Mustian K, Kovacs C. A home‐based intervention to improve balance, gait and self‐confidence. Activities, Adaptation & Aging 2002;27(2):1‐16.

Wolf 1996 {published data only}

Wolf SL, Barnhart HX, Kutner NG, McNeely E, Coogler C, Xu T. Reducing frailty and falls in older persons: an investigation of Tai Chi and computerized balance training. Atlanta FICSIT Group. Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1996;44(5):489‐97.

Wolf 2003 {published data only}

Wolf SL, Sattin RW, Kutner M, O'Grady M, Greenspan AI, Gregor RJ. Intense Tai Chi exercise training and fall occurrences in older, transitionally frail adults: a randomized, controlled trial... includes commentary by Lavery L and Studenski S. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003;51(12):1693‐701, 1804‐5.

Yates 2001 {published data only}

Yates SM, Dunnagan, TA. Evaluating the effectiveness of a home‐based fall risk reduction program for rural community‐dwelling older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2001;56(4):M226‐30.

References to studies awaiting assessment

Ir a:

Baum 2003 {published data only}

Baum EE, Jarjoura D, Polen AE, Faur D, Rutecki G. Effectiveness of a group exercise program in a long‐term care facility: a randomized pilot trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2003;4(2):74‐80.

Campbell 1997 {published data only}

Campbell AJ, Robertson MC, Gardner MM, Norton R, Tilyard MW, Buchner DM. Randomised controlled trial of a general practice programme of home based exercise to prevent falls in elderly women. BMJ 1997;315(7115):1065‐69.

Chandler 1998 {published data only}

Chandler J, Duncan P, Kochersberger G, Studenski S. Is lower extremity strength gain associated with improvement in physical performance and disability in frail, community‐dwelling elders?. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1998;79(1):24‐30.

Gaub 2003 {published data only}

Gaub M, Prost E, Bomar M, Farid R, Langland G, Brown M. Exercise specificity for physical frailty. Journal of Geriatrics & Physical Therapy 2003;26(3):36‐50.

Latham 2003 {published data only}

Latham NK, Anderson CS, Lee A, Bennett DA, Moseley A, Cameron ID. A randomized, controlled trial of quadriceps resistance exercise and vitamin D in frail older people: the Frailty Interventions Trial in Elderly Subjects (FITNESS). Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003;51(3):291‐9.

Morris 1999 {published data only}

Morris JN, Fiatarone M, Kiely DK, Belleville Taylor P, Murphy K, et al. Nursing rehabilitation and exercise strategies in the nursing home. Journal of Gerontology 1999;54(10):M494‐500.

Sattin 2005 {published data only}

Sattin RW, Easley KA, Wolf SL, Chen Y, Kutner MH. Reduction in fear of falling through intense tai chi exercise training in older, transitionally frail adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2005;53(7):1168‐78.

Sayers 2003 {published data only}

Sayers SP, Bean J, Cuoco A, LeBrasseur NK, Jette A, Fielding RA. Changes in function and disability after resistance training: does velocity matter? A pilot study. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2003;82(8):605‐13.

Schlicht 2001 {published data only}

Schlicht J, Camaione DN, Owen SV. Effect of intense strength training on standing balance, walking speed, and sit‐to‐stand performance in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2001;56(5):M281‐6.

Schoenfelder 2000 {published data only}

Schoenfelder DP. A fall prevention program for elderly individuals. Exercise in long‐term care settings. Journal of Gerontology Nursing 2000;26(3):43‐51.

Skelton 1995 {published data only}

Skelton DA, Young A, Greig CA, Malbut KE. Effects of resistance training on strength, power, and selected functional abilities of women aged 75 and older. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1995;43(10):1081‐7.

Skelton 1996 {published data only}

Skelton DA, McLaughlin AW. Training functional ability in old age. Physiotherapy 1996;82(3):159‐67.

Taaffe 1999 {published data only}

Taaffe DR, Duret C, Wheeler S, Marcus R. Once‐weekly resistance exercise improves muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1999;47(10):1208‐14.

Topp 1993 {published data only}

Topp R, Mikesky A, Wigglesworth J, Holt WJ, Edwards JE. The effect of a 12‐week dynamic resistance strength training program on gait velocity and balance of older adults. Gerontologist 1993;33(4):501‐6.

Toraman 2004 {published data only}

Toraman NF, Erman A, Agyar E. Effects of multicomponent training on functional fitness in older adults. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2004;12(4):538‐53.

Urbscheit 2001 {published data only}

Urbscheit NL, Wiegand MR. Effect of two exercise programs on balance scores in elderly ambulatory people. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 2001;19(4):49‐58.

Worm 2001 {published data only}

Vad E, Worm C, Lauritsen JM, Poulsen PB, Puggaard L, Stovring H, et al. Physical training as treatment of reduced functional ability in frail 75+ year‐olds living at home. A randomized intervention study in general practice with technological assessment elements [Fysisk traening som behandling af nedsat funktionsevne hos svage, hjemmeboende 75+ ‐arige. Et randomiseret interventionsstudie i almen praksis omfattende elementer til en teknologivurdering]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 2002;164(44):5140‐4.
Worm CH, Vad E, Puggaard L, Stovring H, Lauritsen J, Kragstrup J. Effects of a multicomponent exercise program on functional ability in community‐dwelling, frail older adults. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2001;9(4):414‐24.

Yan 2005 {published data only}

Yan T‐B, Xie R‐H, Guo Y‐H, Jin D‐M, Cao Y‐L. Comparison of the effects of shadowboxing on equilibrium function of healthy elderly women. Zhongguo Linchuang Kangfu 2005;9(4):159‐61.

Zisi 2001 {published data only}

Zisi V, Michalopoulou M, Tzetzis G, Kioumourtzoglou E. Effects of a short‐term exercise program on motor function and whole body reaction time in the elderly. Journal of Human Movement Studies 2001;40(2):145‐60.

Baker 1985

Baker SP, Harvey AH. Fall injuries in the elderly. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine 1985;1(3):501‐12.

Bellamy 1997

Bellamy N. Kirwan J. Boers M. Brooks P. Strand V. Tugwell P, et al. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures in future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis: consensus development at OMERACT III. Journal of Rheumatology 1997;24(4):799‐802.

Berg 1989

Berg K. Balance and its measure in the elderly: A review. Physiotherapy Canada 1989;41(5):240‐6.

Berg 1992

Berg KO, Wood‐Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: Validation of an instrument. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1992;83(Suppl 2):S7‐11.

Campbell 1997

Campbell AJ, Robertson MC, Gardner MM, Norton RN, Tilyard MW, Buchner DM. Randomised controlled trial of a general practice programme of home based exercise to prevent falls in elderly women. BMJ 1997;315(7115):1065‐9.

Chandler 1996

Chandler JM, Hadley EC. Exercise to improve physiologic and functional performance in old age. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine 1996;12(4):761‐84.

Daubney 1999

Daubney ME, Culham EG. Lower‐extremity muscle force and balance performance in adults aged 65 years and older. Physical Therapy 1999;79(12):1177‐85.

Doherty 1993

Doherty TJ, Vandervoort AA, Brown WF. Effects of ageing on the motor unit: a brief review. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 1993;18(4):331‐58.

Duncan 1990

Duncan PW, Weiner DK, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. Journal of Gerontology 1990;45(6):M192‐7.

Geiger 2001

Geiger RA, Allen JB, O'Keefe J, Hicks RR. Balance and mobility following stroke: effects of physical therapy interventions with and without biofeedback/forceplate training. Physical Therapy 2001;81(4):995‐1005.

Gillespie 2004

Gillespie LD, Gillespie WJ, Robertson MC, Lamb SE, Cumming RG, Rowe BH. Interventions for preventing falls in elderly people (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3.

Huxham 2001

Huxham FE, Goldie PA, Patla AE. Theoretical considerations in balance assessment. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2001;47(2):89‐100.

Lamb 2006

Lamb S. personal communication 27 November 2006.

Latham 2004

Latham N, Anderson C, Bennett D, Stretton C. Progressive resistance strength training for physical disability in older people (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3.

Madhok 2006

Madhok R, Shaw LJ, Elliott J, Gillespie LD. Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group (formerly the Musculoskeletal Injuries Group). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006. Chichester: Wiley. Updated quarterly.

Mills 1994

Mills EM. The effect of low‐intensity aerobic exercise on muscle strength, flexibility, and balance among sedentary elderly persons. Nursing Research 1994;43(4):207‐11.

Nevitt 1989

Nevitt MC, Cummings SR, Kidd S, Black D. Risk factors for recurrent nonsyncopal falls: a prospective study. JAMA 1989;261:2663‐8.

Podsiadlo 1991

Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed 'Up and Go': A test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. Journal of the American Geriatric Society. 1991;39(2):142‐8.

Robertson 2001

Robertson MC, Devlin N, Gardner MM, Campbell AJ. Effectiveness and economic evaluation of a nurse delivered home based exercise programme to prevent falls. 1: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2001;322(7288):697‐701.

Robinson 2002

Robinson KA, Dickerson K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. International Journal of Epidemiology 2002;31(1):150‐3.

Skinner 1984

Skinner HB, Barrack RL, Cook SD. Age‐related decline in proprioception. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research 1984;(184):208‐11.

Stelmach 1994

Stelmach GE. Physical activity and aging: Sensory and perceptual processing. In: Bouchard C, Shepard RJ, Stephens T editor(s). Physical fitness and health. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1994.

Tinetti 1988

Tinetti ME, Speechley M, Ginter SF. Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. New England Journal of Medicine 1988;319:1701‐7.

Verhagen 1998

Verhagen AP, D Vet HC, De Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998;51(12):1235‐41.

Walker 2000

Walker C, Brouwer BJ, Culham EG. Use of visual feedback in retraining balance following acute stroke. Physical Therapy 2000;80(9):886‐95.

WHO 2001

World Health Organization. ICF. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2001. [ISBN 9241545429. m]

Winter 1995

Winter DA. A.B.C. Anatomy, biomechanics and control of balance during standing and walking. Waterloo, Ont: Waterloo Biomechanics, 1995.

Wolf 1996

Wolf SL, Barnhart HX, Kutner NG, McNeely E, Coogler C, Xu T. Reducing frailty and falls in older persons: an investigation of Tai Chi and computerized balance training. Atlanta FICSIT Group. Frailty and Injuries: Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1996;44(5):489‐97.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Boshuizen 2005

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 23 of 72 from 3 arms.

Participants

N = 33 completers in two arms
Age: mean (SD) 80.0 (6.7) exercise group, 77.2 (6.5) control group.
Sex: high guidance group ‐ all female, medium guidance group ‐ 2 male, control group 2 male.
Setting: Netherlands.
Inclusion: difficulty getting up from chair.
Exclusion: maximum knee extensor torque over 87.5 Nm, self reported disease adversely affected by exercise.

Interventions

Exercise group (STRENGTH) (n = 16): strengthening exercises of lower limbs with theraband and increasing resistance in sitting and standing.
Control group (n = 17): usual activity.
Duration and intensity: 10 weeks of 2 x 1hour supervised classes per week and 1 self supervised home session.
Supervisor: physical therapist for exercise groups.
Supervision: group exercise classes for exercise groups and self home exercises.
Setting: community.

Outcomes

20 metre walk test (s).
TUG (s).
Tandem stance (s).

Notes

Trial had 3 arms but NSD between 2 interventions therefore data taken from 'High guidance' group
Compliance in exercise group 73%

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Brouwer 2003

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Blinding not known.
Losses: 4 of 38.

Participants

N= 38
Age: mean (SD) 77.1 (5.1) ‐ exercise group, 78.0 (5.5) ‐ control group.
Sex: 5 male, 12 female ‐ exercise group, 4 male, 13 female ‐ control group.
Setting: Canada.
Inclusion: fear of falling.
Exclusion: co‐morbidities (neuropathy, vestibular deficits, mobility arthritis, neurological conditions).

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): low resistance exercises against gravity, theraband for legs and trunk, reaching, weight shifting, marching on spot, and home exercise programme.
Control group: discussion about concerns relating to falling, education about environment.
Duration and intensity: 1 hour per week x 8 weeks both groups. Exercise group additional 40 minutes x 2 week home exercise programme.
Supervisor: physiotherapist.
Supervision: group.
Setting: gym.

Outcomes

Force platform ‐ LOS AP and ML (cm).
Walking speed (middle 10 of 20 metres) (m/s).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Buchner 1997a

Methods

RCT.
Random permuted blocks.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 5 of 105.
Intention to treat analysis.

Participants

N = 105, Factorial design 51 allocated to relevant arms.
Age: mean 75 range 68 ‐ 85.
Sex: 51% female.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: 68 ‐ 85 years unable to do 8 step tandem gait with no errors, below 50th centile for knee extensor strength for height and weight.
Exclusion: cardiovascular, pulmonary, vestibular and bone disease, dependency terminal illness, unable to speak English, positive cardiac stress test, body weight greater than 180% of ideal.

Interventions

Strength group (STRENGTH): free weights and gym equipment
Control group: usual activities.
Duration and intensity: intervention groups ‐ 1 hour x 3 days a week (24 ‐ 26 weeks).
Supervisor: not stated.
Supervision: group.
Setting: gym/ clinic.

Outcomes

Ability to walk on wide and narrow beams.
Balance in parallel, semi tandem and tandem stance (s).
Single legged stance (s)
Gait speed (m/min).
Tilt board AP and OMNI directional (s).

Notes

Trial had 4 arms. Part of FICSIT study see Buchner 1993

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Buchner 1997b

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 4 of 106.
Intention to treat analysis.

Participants

N = 106.
Age: mean 75 control, 75 cycle, 74 walk, 75 aerobic.
Sex: females ‐ 50% control, 54% cycle, 54% walk, 54% aerobic.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: sedentary, 68 ‐ 85 years, mild balance deficit.
Exclusion: regular exercise, cardiovascular, pulmonary, vestibular and bone disease, dependency terminal illness, unable to speak English, positive cardiac stress test, body weight greater than 180% of ideal.

Interventions

Control group: usual activity
Cycling group (CYCLING): static cycle
Walking group (WALKING): outdoors
Dance movement group (3D): to music
Duration and intensity: intervention groups ‐ 1 hour x 3 per week for 3 months.
Supervisor: not stated.
Supervision: group.
Setting: gym/clinic.

Outcomes

OMNI tilt board (s).
Walking on wide beam (m/s).
Walking on narrow beam (m/s).
Force plate ‐ eyes open, eyes closed (area mm2/s: average radius mm).
AP tilt board (s)
Gait speed (m/min)

Notes

Part of FICSIT study see Buchner 1993

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Cress 1999

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Blinding not known.
Losses: 7 of 56.
Intention to treat analysis.

Participants

N = 56
Age: mean (SD) 76 (4).
Sex: not stated.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: 70 years and above, good health, living in retirement community or apartment.
Exclusion: unstable cardiovascular or metabolic disease, recent unhealed fractures, other disorders, life expectancy less than 1 year, excessive alcohol, non English speaking.

Interventions

Exercise group (STRENGTH): combined endurance and resistance.
Control group: none exercising.
Duration and intensity: 1 hour x 3 per week for 6 months.
Supervisor: not stated.
Supervision: group.
Setting: community.

Outcomes

Usual walking speed (m/s).
Time on 9 m beam (s).
FRT (cm).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Crilly 1989

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by random tables.
Blinding not known.
Losses: 14 of 50

Participants

N = 50
Age: mean 82, range 71 ‐ 92.
Sex: female.
Setting: Canada.
Inclusion: over 70 years, ability to ambulate independently, good eyesight and hearing, understand instruction, ability to participate in exercise programmes.
Exclusion: no specific criteria.

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): exercise aimed at improving breathing, single and double limb balance, co‐ordination, flexibility, strength and relaxation.
Control group: usual activity.
Duration and intensity: exercise group ‐ 15 ‐ 35 minutes x 3 week for 3 months.
Supervisor: physiotherapist.
Supervision: group.
Setting: institutional.

Outcomes

Postural sway during quiet standing on force plate ‐ eyes open, eyes closed ‐ RMS ML and AP (mm)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Islam 2004

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Blinding not known.
Losses: 4 prior to testing

Participants

N = 43
Age: 69 ‐ 89 years
Sex: 20 male, 19 female.
Setting: Japan
Inclusion: healthy
Exclusion: taking medication, signs or symptoms of diagnosed disease.

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): balance exercises designed to challenge the visual (e.g. opened /closed eyes), vestibular (e.g. move head), somatosensory (e.g. stand on foam) and muscular (e.g. standing on one leg, bending body in different directions) systems. Exercises were initially performed while standing on the floor (first 4 weeks) and then progressed to standing.
Control group: usual activity.
Duration and intensity: 2 sessions per week for 60 minutes for 12 weeks.
Supervisor: fitness instructor
Supervision: individual
Setting: gym

Outcomes

Maximum excursion of LOS (forward, backward, right, left)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Jessup 2003

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation ‐ parallel design, random number table designed by Burns and Grove.
Assessors blinded to randomisation but aware of which group participants were allocated to.
Losses: 2 of 18.

Participants

N = 18
Age: mean (SD) 69.2 (3.5).
Sex: female.
Setting: USA
Inclusion: healthy women not taking hormone or osteoporosis medication, or done so in the last 12 months, no regular exercise in the last 12 months.
Exclusion: medical history or physical examination revealing cardiac or pulmonary, endocrine, neuromuscular or orthopaedic conditions or dextra results indicating contra indication, visual acuity test less than 20/50, mini mental test less than 20, inability to retain Romberg stance for 20 seconds without losing balance, alcohol or drug abuse, smokers, psychiatric conditions.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): Strength exercises began with 8 to 10 repetitions at 50% of pretest 1RM score on progressed to 75%. Load‐bearing walking, stair‐climbing and balance ‐training exercises, wearing weighted vests after 2 weeks. Balance‐training exercises, in walking.
Control group: usual activities of daily living.
Duration and intensity: 3 sessions (60 ‐ 90 mins) per week for 32 weeks
Supervisor: research assistant and co investigator
Supervision: group
Setting: gym

Outcomes

Body sway (cm)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Johansson 1991

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Assessors blinded to experimental design and pre test scores.
Losses: 1 of 34.

Participants

N = 34
Age: 70 years old
Sex: female
Setting: Sweden
Inclusion: healthy volunteers aged 70 years.
Exclusion: neurological disease, amputation, severe pain in legs.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): walking different directions at different speeds, combined with movement of the arms, neck and trunk. Exercise to music including weight transfer exercises while sitting and standing and rising from and sitting down in a chair, were performed.
Control group: usual activity
Duration and intensity: exercise group ‐ 1 hour, twice a week, for 5 weeks.
Supervisor: physiotherapist
Supervision: group
Setting: gym

Outcomes

Single legged stance ‐ eyes open, eyes closed (s)
Walking along a beam (m)
Walking for 30 metres (s)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Krebs 1998

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation: not known.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 12 of 132

Participants

N = 132
Age: mean 74.3 years
Sex: 31 male, 89 female.
Setting: USA
Inclusion: Community dwelling, 60 years plus, reported one or more functional limitations on SF36 physical function scale, no medical history contraindicating exercise, no current rehab.
Exclusion:

Interventions

Exercise group (STRENGTH): strong for life programme, 35 minute video of 11 exercises, resistance elastic bands, functional movement patterns simulate to PNF, arms and legs, therapists supervised 2 home visits then telephone contact.
Control group: usual activity
Duration and intensity: 6 months
Supervisor: therapist
Supervision: self and therapist (therapists supervised 2 home visits then telephone contact).
Setting: home

Outcomes

Gait velocity (cm/s).

Notes

Compliance 78%

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Lichtenstein 1989

Methods

Quasi RCT.
Method of randomisation: Random Number table to recruit participants from sample then group randomised by apartment building n = 2 by coin toss.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 7 of 50

Participants

N = 50
Age: mean 76.7
Sex: Female
Setting: USA
Inclusion: Women, 65 years or older, single (never married, divorced, separated, widowed) and living alone
Exclusion: History of Parkinson or Stroke, had any loss of limb, were unable to walk independently or with use of cane

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): stretching, "static balance" (e.g. standing on one leg), "active balance" (e.g. using tandem heel/toe gait, walking along a line), "response exercises" (e.g. performing maneuvers in response to changing colour signals), walking and cool‐down and relaxation.
Control group: usual activity
Duration and intensity: sessions were 1 hr, 3 x week for 16 weeks.
Supervisor: investigator
Supervision: group
Setting: community

Outcomes

Single legged stance ‐ eyes open, eyes closed on force platform
Average XY area per second (square inches/s
Average radial area per second (square inches/s)
Average velocity (inches/s)

Notes

Compliance median 85% range 0‐142%

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Lord 1995

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation. Participants were drawn from a health insurance membership database in Northern Sydney. They were randomised in matched blocks n = 20.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 46 of 197.

Participants

N = 197.
Age: 60 ‐ 85 years mean (SD) 71.6 (5.4)
Sex: females
Setting: Australia
Inclusion: 60 years plus in community dwelling.
Exclusion: not living at dwelling of time of study, little English.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): improving strength, flexibility, co‐ordination, and balance, the individualised exercise regimes were based on participant's falls risk profile.
Control group: no information assumed usual activity
Duration and intensity: sessions 1 hr 2 x week for 12 months
Supervisor: accredited fitness instructor
Supervision: group
Setting: community

Outcomes

Postural sway eyes open and eyes closed on floor and foam (cm) (Lord sway meter)
Maximal balance range (cm)
Co‐ordinated stability test (errors)

Notes

Compliance: mean 73.2% across the groups

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Lord 2003

Methods

Cluster RCT.
Randomisation was stratified by accommodation status (self care of intermediate care) and cluster size. There were 20 clusters 7 self care and 3 intermediate care exercise clusters 20 clusters 7 self care and 3 intermediate care control clusters.
Blinded person organising randomisation not involved in rest of trial
Losses: 43 out of 551

Participants

N = 551, factorial design 280 allocated to relevant arms
Age: range 62‐95 mean (sd) 79.5 (6.4) years
Sex: 77 male, 474 female
Setting: Australia
Inclusion: living in retirement village,
Exclusion: mini mental score <20, mental condition involving neuromuscular, skeletal, or cardiovascular system, in hospital or not present at the time of recruitment, already attending exercise class of equivalent intensity

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): warm‐up period, conditioning period including aerobic exercises, specific strengthening exercises, and activities for balance, hand‐eye and foot‐eye coordination, and flexibility.
Control group 1: Took part in a flexibility and relaxation program.
Control group 2: No input assumed usual activity
Duration and intensity: exercise group and control group 1: sessions 1 hour twice a week for 12 months.
Supervisor: exercise group: trained instructor, control group 1 ‐ yoga instructor.
Supervision: group
Setting: community

Outcomes

Postural sway on floor and foam eyes open and eyes closed (mm) (Lord sway meter)
Co‐ordinated stability test (errors).
Maximum balance range (cm)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Lord 2005

Methods

RCT.
Randomised in matched blocks using concealed allocation, drawing lots.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 144 of 620
Intention to treat analysis.

Participants

N = 620
Age: 75 ‐ 98, mean (SD) 80.4 (4.5).
Sex: females 409, males 211.
Setting: Australia
Inclusion: 75 years plus, community living
Exclusion: minimal English language skills, blind, Parkinson, short portable mini mental test less than 7, and not considered risk of falling.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): based on falls risk profile, individualised exercises aimed at improving strength, and balance and or vision if a problem, peripheral warm up, conditioning, strength, flexibility, coordination and balance.
Minimal intervention group: instruction sheets for home exercise.
Control group: usual activity
Duration and intensity: sessions 1hr x 2 week for 12 months (only data for initial 6 months reported)
Supervisor: trained supervisor
Supervision: group
Setting: community

Outcomes

Postural sway on floor and foam eyes open and eyes closed (mm) (Lord sway meter)
Co‐ordinated stability test (errors)

Notes

Three arms to this study: we have reported the enhanced intervention group
only data on balance outcomes for initial 6 months reported.
Compliance with exercise: median 21 of 78.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
MacRae 1994

Methods

RCT.
Quasi‐randomised by senior centre.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 21 of 80.

Participants

N = 80
Age: exercise group ‐ mean 72.4, control group ‐ mean 70.
Sex: females
Setting: USA
Inclusion: medical clearance, 60 years plus attending a senior centre.
Exclusion: physicians advice.

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): stand up/step up routine designed to improve strength and balance with warm up and cool down.
Control group: attention control group
Duration and intensity: exercise group ‐ 1 hour sessions 3 days a week for 12 months, control group ‐ one hour weekly for 12 months.
Supervisor: exercise instructor
Supervision: group
Setting: gym

Outcomes

One legged stance (s)
Self paced gait velocity (m/s)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
McGarry 2001

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation not known.
Blinding not known.
Loss: not stated

Participants

N=22
Age: mean 74.77 (range 60‐87) years
Sex: 16 female, 6 males
Setting: USA
Inclusion: not stated
Exclusion: not stated

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): "Get off your Rocker" balance class, including single leg stance, Swiss ball, tandem walking.
Control group: usual activity.
Duration and intensity: 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks.
Supervisor: physical therapist
Supervision: group
Setting: ?gym

Outcomes

BBS (score)
FRT (cm)
TUG (s)

Notes

Abstract only

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

D ‐ Not used
McMurdo 1993

Methods

RCT
Randomised homes by sealed envelopes based on computer generated numbers, participants allocated in blocks of 4 by gender and age (70‐79 and 80+)
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 8 of 49.

Participants

N = 49
Age: mean 81 (range 64 ‐ 91) years.
Sex: 33 females, 8 males.
Setting: UK
Inclusion: in residential care
Exclusion: residents with severe communication difficulties.

Interventions

Exercise group (GEN ACTIVITY): All exercises were performed seated. Warm‐up, exercises designed to put joints in upper and lower limbs through their full range of movements. As the study progressed participants were encouraged to sustain muscle contractions for longer and increase number of repetitions.
Control group: attended reminiscence sessions
Duration and intensity: exercise group ‐ 45 minutes twice weekly for six months, control group ‐ for 45 mins twice weekly for 6 months.
Supervisor: not stated.
Supervision: group
Setting: residential home

Outcomes

Postural sway ‐ eyes open and eyes closed.

Notes

Compliance mean 91% exercise sessions

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Nelson 2004

Methods

RCT.
Stratified block randomisation by gender and age (70 ‐ 79, 80 plus)
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 4 of 72.

Participants

N = 72
Age: over 70 years
Sex: 27 female
Setting: USA
Inclusion: > 70 exercising no more than 1 day/week community dwelling must have 2 functional limitations and score 10 or less on EPESE.
Exclusion: Unstable cardiovascular disease, psychiatric disorders, neurological or muscular diseases, terminal illness, cognitive impairment.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): balance and strength using free weights working at 7/8 on a 10 point Borg Scale, tandem walks, running etc, plus 120 minutes physical activity per week .
Control group: attention via nutritional education booklet.
Duration and intensity: exercise programme ‐ 3 times a week for 6 months plus 120 minutes physical activity per week.
Supervisor: exercise physiologist
Supervision: exercise group ‐ individual self paced, 6 home visits in the 1st month and then monthly, attention control ‐ 2 home visits in 1st month and then monthly.
Setting: home.

Outcomes

Tandem walk (over 20 feet) (s).
One legged stance (max 30 s).
Maximum gait speed (over 2 m).

Notes

Compliance mean 82%.
Adverse events 1 fell in exercise group and 1 food poisoning in control group.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Okumiya 1996

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 6 of 42

Participants

N = 42
Age: 75 ‐ 87 years, mean 79
Sex: 18 males, 24 females.
Setting: Japan.
Inclusion: 75 years and over.
Exclusion: evidence of coronary artery disease or severe obstructive airways.

Interventions

Exercise group (GEN ACTIVITY): warm up, light aerobic exercise, exercises aimed at improving neuromotor co‐ordination, and muscle‐strengthening exercises, cool down.
Control group: usual activity.
Duration and intensity: exercise group ‐ 60 minute session twice a week for 24 weeks.
Supervisor: one physical educator, one medical doctor, and 5 nurses.
Supervision: group
Setting: community

Outcomes

TUG (s)
Functional Reach Test (cm)

Notes

Compliance mean 86% (59‐100%)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Paillard 2004

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Blinded not known.
Losses: not stated.

Participants

N = 21
Age: 63 ‐ 72 years
Sex: males
Setting: France
Inclusion: active in physical exercise 3 hours per week, good condition for their age.
Exclusion: medical contra indications.

Interventions

Exercise group (WALKING): individual walking programme determined by lactate levels during VO2 max test
Control group: usual activities
Duration and intensity: 45 ‐ 60 minutes x 5 times a week x 12 weeks.
Supervisor: not stated.
Supervision: self.
Setting: home.

Outcomes

Force platform ‐ dynamic test, lateral and AP.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Ramsbottom 2004

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by random number tables.
Assessors not blinded.
Losses: 8 of 22.
Intention to treat analysis.

Participants

N = 22
Age: over 70 years.
Sex: 7 males, 15 females.
Setting: UK.
Inclusion: Normal, sedentary over 70 years, community dwelling.
Exclusion: risk of taking PRE, physically active.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): free weights to strengthen and develop power in shoulder, hip adductors/abductors/flexors/extensors, knee flexor/extensors, increasing in repetitions, functional mobility, stretching and balance exercises.
Control group: usual activities.
Duration and intensity: 2 x a week for 24 weeks.
Supervisor: keep fit association registered teacher.
Supervision: group.
Setting: community.

Outcomes

Postural sway on BPM
TUG (s)
FRT (cm)

Notes

Adherence ‐ mean (SD) 43 (3) classes (max 48)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Reinsch 1992

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by senior centre (n = 16).
Blinding not known.
Losses: 46 of 230.
Intention to treat analysis.

Participants

N = 230.
Age: 60 years plus.
Sex: 185 female, 45 male.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: 60 years and over, attending senior centres (n = 16).
Exclusion: none reported.

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): stand up and step ups functional exercises.
Control group: discussion.
Duration and intensity: both groups 1 hour, 3 times per week for 12 months.
Supervisor: college students.
Supervision: group
Setting: community in senior centres.

Outcomes

Single legged stance (s).

Notes

Trial had 4 arms: others included CBT only, exercise plus CBT.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Rooks 1997a

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by unbalanced 3 group block randomisation (due to expected higher attrition rate in control group every 13th volunteer was allocated to control group).
Blinded not known.
Losses: 38 of 131.
Intention to treat analysis.

Participants

N = 131.
Age: 65 ‐ 95 years.
Sex: % female = 59 resistance group, 52 walking group, 82 control group.
Setting: USA
Inclusion: 65 years plus, climb a flight of stairs, participate in regular activities outside home a minimum 2 x week, transport to community centre.
Exclusion: use of medication comprising safety or ability to complete study, uncontrolled or unstable chronic conditions.

Interventions

Resistance training group (STRENGTH): stair climbing with resistance, seated knee extension, standing, standing knee extension.
Walking group (WALKING): walking own pace on level ground.
Control group: on a waiting list for exercise programme.
Duration and intensity: resistance training group and walking group ‐ 1 hour, 3 times per week for 10 months.
Supervisor: research assistant.
Supervision: group (5‐6).
Setting: community.

Outcomes

Tandem stance (s).
Single legged stance ‐ eyes open and eyes closed (s).
Timed forward tandem walk (10 feet).

Notes

% Compliance resistance training group ‐ 85 (47 ‐ 100), walking group ‐ 82 (29 ‐ 97)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Rubenstein 2000

Methods

RCT.
Randomly generated sequence of cards in sealed envelopes.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 4 ‐ 7 of 59.

Participants

N = 59.
Age: mean (SD) 74.4 (43.4) ‐ control group, 76.4 (4.9) ‐ exercise group.
Sex: male.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: 70 years plus, lower extremity weakness, impaired gait, impaired balance, one fall in previous 6 months.
Exclusion: regular exercises, severe cardiac or pulmonary disease, terminal illness, severe joint pain, dementia, medical unresponsive depression, progressive neurological disease.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): PRE, hip, knee and ankle, endurance training bike, treadmill, indoor walking and balance training.
Control group: usual activities.
Duration and intensity: exercise group ‐ 90 minutes, 3 times per week x 12 weeks.
Supervisor: exercise physiology students.
Supervision: group.
Setting: clinic.

Outcomes

Single legged stance (s) (for max 15 s)

Notes

SD 43.4 years for control group age, might be a typo in original paper

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Sauvage 1992

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 2 of 14.

Participants

N = 14
Age: mean (SD) exercise group ‐ 73.38 (4.04), control group ‐ 73.83 (4.74).
Sex: male.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: Recruited from Veterans Nursing Home. Aged over 60 years, independently mobile, gait and balance difficulties (Tinetti score greater than 30), lower extremity weakness.
Exclusion: moderate to severe dementia, asymmetrical focal neurolic deficits, lower extremity amputation, leg length discrepancies, significant systemic disease.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): PRE and aerobic conditioning (>70% exercise stress tested maximal HR) using gym equipment and ergometers.
Control group: usual activity.
Duration and intensity: 45 ‐ 75 minutes, 3 times per week x 12 weeks.
Supervisor: not stated
Supervision: group (3 ‐4).
Setting: Institutional.

Outcomes

Average gait velocity (cm/s) over 20 feet. (right and left).
COP movement during quiet stance ‐ eyes open, eyes closed (mm).

Notes

Compliance 95% for exercise group

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Schoenfelder 2004

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known (matched pairs by risk assessment for falls).
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 37 of 81.

Participants

N = 81
Age: 64 ‐ 100 years, mean 84.1.
Sex: 62 female, 19 male.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: Recruited from nursing homes, 65 years and over, independent ambulators, English speakers, scored 20 plus on MMSE.
Exclusion: unstable physical conditions.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): strength and endurance training plus 10 minutes walking.
Control group: attention placebo.
Duration and intensity: exercise group ‐ 15 ‐20 minutes, 3 times per week x 3 months. Control group ‐ 30 minutes weekly x 3 months.
Supervisor: student nurses.
Supervision: individual.
Setting: institutional.

Outcomes

Parallel stance (max 10s) (s).
Semi tandem stance (max 10s) (s).
Tandem stance (max 10s) (s).
Walking speed over 6 metres (m/s).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Shigematsu 2002

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by centre.
Blinding not known.
Losses: none reported.

Participants

N = 38
Age: 72 ‐ 87 years (mean 78.6 exercise group, 79.8 control group)
Sex: female
Setting: Japan.
Inclusion: over 70 years, living independently, no cardiovascular problems, not exercising regularly, must be attending silver club.
Exclusion:

Interventions

Exercise group (3D): aerobic dance to music
Control group ‐ not stated (assumed usual activity).
Duration and intensity: 1 hour 3 times per week x 3 months.
Supervisor: exercise specialist.
Supervision: group.
Setting: community.

Outcomes

Single legged stance ‐ eyes open, eyes closed (s).
Functional reach test (cm).

Notes

Compliance with exercise 78.8%
Measures reported in Shigematsu 2000 ‐ Age scale for assessing functional fitness in older Japanese ambulatory women. Ageing Clin Ex Res 12, 256‐263.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Shimada 2004

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by random number tables.
Assessors not blind.
Losses: 6 of 32

Participants

N = 32
Age: 66 ‐98 years
Sex: 25 female, 7 male.
Setting: Japan.
Inclusion: ambulatory residents or attending a geriatric health facility, high risk for falls, decreased balance, gait and muscle strength
Exclusion: unable to walk for 3 mins at 0.5 km/hr, health problems or dementia

Interventions

Exercise group (WALKING):‐ gait training on a bilateral separated treadmill
Control group: usual care
Duration and intensity: 1‐3 times per week for 6 months
Supervisor: physiotherapist.
Supervision: individual.
Setting: institutional.

Outcomes

Single legged stance (s).
FRT (cm).
Walking speed over 10 m (m/s)

Notes

Data not reported appropriately for walking speed.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

D ‐ Not used
Sihvonen 2004

Methods

RCT.
Randomised in blocks by drawing lots.
Blinding not known.
Losses:1 of 28.

Participants

N = 28
Age: mean (SD) 80.7 (6.1) ‐ exercise group, 82.9 (4.2) control group.
Sex: female.
Setting: Finland.
Inclusion: resident at two care homes, 70 years and over, able to stand and walk without walking aid.
Exclusion: health problems.

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): dynamic exercise on force platform and training device with visual feedback on movement on COP.
Control group ‐ usual activity.
Duration and intensity: 20 ‐ 30 minutes session, 3 times per week for 4 weeks.
Supervisor: not stated.
Supervision: individual.
Setting: institutional.

Outcomes

AP and ML velocities of sway and velocity moment in 6 standing balance tests.
Performance time and distance in 3 dynamic balance tests.
BBS (points).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Suzuki 2004

Methods

RCT
Randomisation by random number tables
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 8 of 52
Intention to treat analysis

Participants

N=52
Sex: female
Age: mean (SD) 77.31 (3.4) exercise, 78.64 (4.39) control
Setting: Japan
Inclusion: 73‐90 years, participants in longitudinal study on aging.
Exclusion: marked decline in ADL, hemiplegia, missing baseline data.

Interventions

Exercise group (MULTIPLE): exercise centred falls prevention programme with home based exercise aimed at enhancing muscle strength, balance and gait. Included resistance exercise and Tai Chi.
Control group: usual activity and a pamphlet and advice on falls prevention.
Duration and intensity: 1 exercise session every 2 weeks for 6 months (10 hours).
Supervisor: not stated.
Supervision: group and self.
Setting: community

Outcomes

Single legged stance (s), eyes open (max 1 min), eyes closed (max 30 sec) (s)
Walking speed (over 11 m) (m/s).
Tandem walk (over 2.5m) (steps)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Wolf 1997

Methods

RCT.
Method of randomisation not known.
Blinding not known.
Losses not stated.

Participants

N = 72.
Age: mean (SD) 77.7 (6.5) balance group, 75.2 (4.9) education group, 77.7 (5.2) Tai Chi group.
Sex: 60 females, 12 males.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: over 70 years, free from progressive debilitating processes, able to walk across a room independently, residing in independent living centre.
Exclusion:

Interventions

Balance group (GBFT): force platform standing moving target via cursor excursions eyes open and closed.
Control group ‐ discussion of topics and socialisation.
Tai Chi group (3D): Tai Chi quan ‐ 10 forms.
Duration and intensity: 1 hour every week x 15 weeks.
Supervisor: instructor.
Supervision: group.
Setting: gym.

Outcomes

Chattex balance system to measure: quiet standing eyes open, eyes closed

Notes

Part of Atlanta FICSIT site study.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Wolf 2001

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by sealed envelopes post stratification, selected by blind folded person.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: 45 of 94.
Intention to treat analysis.

Participants

N = 94.
Age: mean (SD) exercise group ‐ 84.5 (6.1), control group ‐ 83.6(5.1).
Sex: 56 female, 21 male.
Setting: Netherlands.
Inclusion: 75 years and over, minimal loss of visual acuity, no acute illness, no physical therapy in previous month, minimum of 17 on MMSE, BBS < 52, impaired balance during function.
Exclusion:

Interventions

Exercise group (GBFT): exercise in sitting, standing and walking, in a variety of situations to test balance.
Control group ‐ reading and board games.
Duration and intensity: 30 minutes 2‐3 times per week x 4‐6 weeks (10 sessions).
Supervisor: therapist and trainers.
Supervision: individual.
Setting: gym or home.

Outcomes

BBS (points) out of 56.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Wolfson 1996

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by blocked allocation schedule stratified by gender using the Moses ‐ Oakford algorithm.
Assessors blinded.
Losses: unclear.

Participants

N = 110.
Age: mean (SD) 79 (5).
Sex: 58% male.
Setting: USA.
Inclusion: 75 years and over, community dwelling, free of clinically detectable disease affecting balance.
Exclusion: inability to walk 8 metres without assistance, other diseased affecting mobility, dementia.

Interventions

Balance group (GBFT): PRObalancemaster with COP feedback, standing and sitting including gym ball eyes open and eyes closed with and without perturbations and gait on foam and narrow beams.
Strength group (STRENGTH): stretching and PRE with sand bags for hip and knee.
Balance and strength group (MULTIPLE): PRObalancemaster with COP feedback, standing and sitting including gym ball eyes open and eyes closed with and without perturbations and gait on foam and narrow beams and stretching and PRE with sand bags for hip and knee.
Educational control group: usual activities, sessions on fall prevention and stress management.
Duration and intensity: balance only and strength only groups 45 mins x 3 times per week x 3 months. Balance and strength group ‐ 45 mins (strength) plus 45 mins (balance) x 3 times per week x 3 months. Educational control group ‐ 5 x 90 minute education sessions. All groups ‐ 6 months Tai Chi maintenance.
Supervisor: not stated.
Supervision: balance training ‐ individual, strength training ‐ group.
Setting: gym.

Outcomes

Loss of Balance during sensory organisation test.
Functional base of support.
Single legged stance time (s).
Usual gait velocity (m/s).

Notes

Part of FICSIT trials.
Compliance ‐ mean (SD) balance 74 % (26), strength 82 % (21), balance and strength 82 % (16), control near perfect.
All subjects including those in control group participated in 6 month Tai Chi following the 3 month intervention phase.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Zhang 2006

Methods

RCT.
Randomised by tossing a coin after pairing by sex, falls and exercise habits.
Blinding not known.
Losses: 2 of 49.

Participants

N = 49.
Age: mean (SD) 70.2 (3.6) Tai Chi, 70.6 (4.9) control.
Sex: 25 male, 24 female.
Setting: Japan.
Inclusion: Community dwelling, scoring 20 ‐25 seconds on one legged stance time.
Exclusion:

Interventions

Exercise group (3D): Tai Chi simplified form of 24 forms plus 11 easy forms at home.
Control group ‐ usual activities.
Duration and intensity: 1 hour, 7 times per week for 8 weeks.
Supervisor: Tai Chi instructor.
Supervision: group and self.
Setting: community in park and home.

Outcomes

One legged stance eyes open (max 60 s).
Walking speed (10 metres).

Notes

Subjects from earlier study by Zhang et al 2003
Compliance ‐ 91.7% practiced 4 plus hours per week.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS:
1RM ‐ One repetition maximum score
3D ‐ 3D exercise including tai chi, qi gong, dance, yoga
ADL ‐ Activities of Daily Living.
AP ‐ Anterior ‐ Posterior
BBS ‐ Berg Balance Scale
BPM ‐ Balance Performance Monitor
cm ‐ centimetres
CoM: Body's centre of mass
COP ‐ Centre of Pressure.
COPD ‐ Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
EPESE ‐ Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly short physical performance battery
Ex ‐ Exercise
FRT ‐ Function Reach Test
GBFT ‐ Gait, balance, functional tasks
GEN ACTIVITY ‐ general physical activity
HR ‐ Heart Rate
Hr ‐ hour
Km‐ kilometres
LOS ‐ Locus Of Support
min ‐ minute
ML ‐ medio‐lateral
mm ‐ millimetres
MMSE ‐ Mini Mental Status Examination.
m/s ‐ metres per second
NSD ‐ no significant difference
PNF ‐ proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
PRE ‐ Progressive Resistance Exercise.
RCT ‐ Randomised Controlled Trial
RMS ‐ root mean squared
s ‐ seconds
SD ‐ Standard Deviation
SLS ‐ Single Legged Stance
SMD ‐ standardised mean difference
STRENGTH ‐ strength training including resistance or power training
TUG ‐ Timed up and go test
WMD ‐ weighted mean difference

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Study

Reason for exclusion

Alexander 2001a

RCT but no specific balance outcomes

Alexander 2001b

RCT no suitable outcome measures

Allen 1999

Description of study no data reported

Anonymous 2002

Summary of Day 2002

Au‐Yeung 2002

Control group received some exercise

Ballard 2004

Control group received some exercise

Barnett 2003

Control group had home exercise

Barrett 2002

Control group received some exercise

Bean 2004

Comparison of different exercise types , no control group

Binder 2002

Control group had home exercise

Bonnefoy 2003

Trial of energy supplements all participants received supplement or placebo

Brown 2000

Control group received some exercise

Bruyere 2005

Intervention not exercise

Buchner 1993

Description of methodology no data

Campbell 1999

No suitable balance outcome measures

Cornillon 2002

Not appropriate outcome measures

Day 2002

No control group

De Vreede 2004

Comparison of exercise types, no control group

Devereux 2005

osteoporotic participants

DeVito 2003

No measures

Dyer 2004

Multifactorial falls programme

Earles 2001

No control group

Fiatarone 1993

FICSIT study multi‐nutrient supplementation no data presented

Gill 2002

No specific balance outcome measures

Gras 2004

No control group

Greendale 2000

Comparison of weighted vests

Hauer 2003

61% of participants had hip fracture or lower extremity fracture

Helbostad 2004a

No specific balance outcome measures

Helbostad 2004b

No control group

Hinman 2002

No control group

Hornbrook 1993

Description of study

Hu 1994

No exercise intervention

Jones 1992

No appropriate outcome measures of balance

Judge 1993a

Control group received flexibility training

Judge 1993b

No specific balance outcome measures

Judge 1994

No specific balance outcome measures

King 2002

Control group had home exercise

Kovacs 2004

No specific balance outcome measures

Kutner 1997

No specific balance outcome measures

LaStayo 2003

Participants had received cardiopulmonary rehabilitation for prior medical conditions.

Latham 2001

Control group had PT

Lazowski 1999

Control group had exercise

Li 2002

No specific balance outcome measures

Li 2005a

Intervention under investigation cobblestone mat

Li 2005b

Control group had stretching

Lindemann 2004

Control group had exercise programme

Liu‐Ambrose 2004

all participants had low bone mass

Marigold 2005

Participants were chronic stroke patients

McMurdo 1994

No measures

McMurdo 2000

Primary outcome falls no primary outcome measure for balance

Means 1996

No specific balance outcome measures

Means 2005

No specific balance outcome measures

Messier 2000

Participants had osteoarthritis

Morgan 2004

No measures

Mulrow 1994

No measures

Nitz 2004

Control group had exercise

Ourania 2003

Not randomised

Paillard 2005

Investigating effects of electrical stimulation

Prasansuk 2004

Participants had balance disorders

Ramsey 2003

Participants were visually impaired

Robbins 2001

Commentary on Robertson 2001

Rooks 1997b

No control group

Ryushi 2000

Age range from 41 years to 53 years.

Shaughnessy 1998

Commentary on Campbell 1997

Shimada 2003

Control groups received exercise

Signorile 2002

No specific balance outcome measures

Simmons 1996

Water versus land based exercise

Simons 2006

No appropriate outcome measures of balance

Skelton 1999

Description of FAME programme no data reported

Sohng 2003

Control group had video programme

Steadman 2003

Control group had PT

Steinberg 2000

No specific balance outcome measures

Szturm 1994

Participants with chronic peripheral vestibular disfunction

Timonen 2002

Control group had home exercise

Tinetti 1994

No specific balance outcome measures

Udani 1998

Commentary on Wolf 1996

Verfaillie 1997

No control group

Williams 2002

Control group had exercise

Wolf 1996

No specific balance outcome measures

Wolf 2003

No specific balance outcome measures

Yates 2001

Multifactorial intervention

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability.

1.1 Immediately post intervention

3

116

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.71 [‐1.33, ‐0.09]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 6 weeks post intervention

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.63 [‐1.37, 0.10]

1.3 Follow‐up @ 4 months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.96 [‐1.67, ‐0.26]

2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance.

2.1 Immediately post intervention

3

116

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.98, 0.20]

2.2 Follow‐up @ 6 weeks post intervention

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.68 [‐1.42, 0.06]

2.3 Follow‐up @ 4 months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.37, 1.81]

3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

3.1 Immediately post intervention

2

82

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐0.77, 0.12]

3.2 Follow up @ 4months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.13 [‐0.79, 0.54]

4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

4.1 Immediately post intervention

2

82

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.60, 0.27]

4.2 Follow up @ 4 months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.82, 0.51]

5 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate greater balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 5 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate greater balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 5 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate greater balance ability.

5.1 Immediately post intervention

1

35

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.05, 0.19]

5.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [0.01, 0.15]

6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

6.1 Immediately post intervention

1

53

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.1 [‐2.24, 0.04]

6.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.1 [‐2.16, ‐0.04]

7 Maxium excursion of limits of stability (LOS) test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.7
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 7 Maxium excursion of limits of stability (LOS) test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 7 Maxium excursion of limits of stability (LOS) test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

7.1 Forward

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

20.10 [8.66, 31.54]

7.2 Backward

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.90 [‐1.77, 19.57]

7.3 Right

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

19.0 [9.02, 28.98]

7.4 Left

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.80 [4.10, 21.50]

8 Single leg stance eyes open (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.8
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 8 Single leg stance eyes open (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 8 Single leg stance eyes open (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability.

8.1 Average XY area per second (square inches per second)

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.57, 0.61]

8.2 Average radial area per second (square inches per second)

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.05 [‐0.26, 0.16]

8.3 Average velocity (inches per second)

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.62, 0.86]

9 Single leg stance eyes closed (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.9
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance eyes closed (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance eyes closed (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability.

9.1 Average XY area per second (square inches per second)

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.41 [‐1.85, 1.03]

9.2 Average radial area per second (square inches per second)

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.93 [‐2.05, 0.19]

9.3 Average velocity (inches per second)

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐2.04, 0.94]

10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.10
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

10.1 Immediately post intervention

4

164

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.02, 0.64]

10.2 Follow up @ 6 months post intervention

1

37

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.33, 0.97]

11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐1.20, 1.20]
Analysis 1.11
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

12 Functional Reach Test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [‐1.71, 2.91]
Analysis 1.12
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 12 Functional Reach Test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 12 Functional Reach Test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

13 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.5 [‐3.49, 0.49]
Analysis 1.13
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 13 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 13 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

14 Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.14
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 14 Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 14 Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

14.1 Immediately post intervention

4

176

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.07, 0.53]

14.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

45

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [‐0.28, 0.90]

14.3 Follow‐up @ 6 weeks post intervention

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.42, 1.03]

15 Walking on a beam (m): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.18, 0.18]
Analysis 1.15
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 15 Walking on a beam (m): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 15 Walking on a beam (m): higher values indicate better balance ability.

16 Berg Balance Scale (score out of 56) higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.16
Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 16 Berg Balance Scale (score out of 56) higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 16 Berg Balance Scale (score out of 56) higher values indicate better balance ability.

16.1 Immediately post intervention

3

126

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.72 [0.94, 4.50]

16.2 Follow up @ 4 weeks post intervention

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.60 [‐1.96, 9.16]

16.3 Follow up @ 1 year post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [‐7.29, 8.63]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Strengthening exercise versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 1 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 1 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate better balance ability.

1.1 Immediately post intervention

1

34

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.09, 0.07]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

27

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10]

2 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 2 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 2 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

2.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐1.66, 0.86]

2.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐1.63, 1.43]

3 Tilt board (s) post‐pre change scores: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 3 Tilt board (s) post‐pre change scores: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 3 Tilt board (s) post‐pre change scores: higher values indicate better balance ability.

3.1 Omnidirectional tilt board (s)

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.0 [‐7.89, ‐0.11]

3.2 AP tilt board (s)

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.0 [‐4.32, 2.32]

4 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

170

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.08, 0.70]
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 4 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 4 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

5 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 5 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 5 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

5.1 Immediately post intervention

2

119

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [‐0.31, 1.32]

5.2 Follow up @ 6 months post intervention

1

31

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.80, 0.63]

6 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

81

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐4.40, 0.40]
Analysis 2.6
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 6 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 6 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

7 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

165

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.24 [‐0.34, 0.82]
Analysis 2.7
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 7 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 7 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

8 Functional Reach Test (FRT) (cm) pre‐post change scores: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.33 [‐6.00, ‐0.66]
Analysis 2.8
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 8 Functional Reach Test (FRT) (cm) pre‐post change scores: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 8 Functional Reach Test (FRT) (cm) pre‐post change scores: lower values indicate better balance ability.

9 Timed up and go test (TUG) (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.5 [‐9.70, 2.70]
Analysis 2.9
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 9 Timed up and go test (TUG) (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 9 Timed up and go test (TUG) (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

10 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.10
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 10 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 10 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

10.1 Immediately post intervention

5

304

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.02, 0.48]

10.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

42

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.24 [‐0.37, 0.85]

11 Balance beam: post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 2.11
Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 11 Balance beam: post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 11 Balance beam: post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

11.1 Wide beam

2

100

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.55, 0.26]

11.2 Narrow beam

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐0.14, 1.14]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability.

1.1 Immediately post intervention

2

87

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.66, 0.19]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [‐0.40, 0.75]

1.3 Follow‐up @ 4 months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.82, 0.52]

2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance.

2.1 Immediately post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.34, 0.94]

2.3 Follow‐up @ 4 months post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.34, 0.94]

3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.3
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

3.1 Immediately post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [‐0.43, 0.84]

3.2 Follow up @ 4months post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [‐0.29, 0.99]

4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.4
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

4.1 Immediately post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.63, 0.64]

4.2 Follow up @ 4 months post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.57, 0.70]

5 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.5
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 5 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 5 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

5.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐21.89, 17.89]

5.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [‐17.47, 23.47]

6 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.6
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 6 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 6 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

6.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐1.14, 0.94]

6.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐1.11, 1.11]

7 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.7
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 7 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 7 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

7.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

29.00 [‐28.94, 86.94]

7.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

39.0 [‐19.01, 97.01]

8 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.8
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 8 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 8 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

8.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.4 [‐1.23, 2.03]

8.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐1.28, 2.08]

9 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.9
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 9 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 9 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

9.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐7.08, 1.08]

9.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.0 [‐7.54, 1.54]

10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

85

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.13 [‐0.17, 2.44]
Analysis 3.10
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.20 [‐3.80, 1.40]
Analysis 3.11
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

12 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.80 [‐1.05, 6.65]
Analysis 3.12
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 12 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 12 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

13 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.13
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 13 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 13 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

13.1 Immediately post intervention

2

99

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.34, 0.45]

13.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.48, 0.68]

14 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.14
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 14 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 14 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

14.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.1 [‐0.16, ‐0.04]

14.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.17, 0.03]

15 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 3.15
Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 15 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 15 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

15.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.8 [‐0.01, 1.61]

15.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [‐0.08, 1.48]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. General physical activity versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Postural sway double stance (post‐pre change scores): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 1 Postural sway double stance (post‐pre change scores): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 1 Postural sway double stance (post‐pre change scores): lower values indicate better balance ability.

1.1 Eyes open

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.70 [‐17.59, 4.19]

1.2 Eyes closed

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.70 [‐26.82, 15.42]

2 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

11.8 [7.75, 15.85]
Analysis 4.2
Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 2 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 2 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

3 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.9 [‐5.83, ‐1.97]
Analysis 4.3
Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 3 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 3 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. General physical activity (walking) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

1.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.0 [‐24.10, 16.10]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [‐19.26, 21.26]

2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.2
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

2.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.5 [‐1.54, 0.54]

2.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.4 [‐1.47, 0.67]

3 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.3
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 3 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 3 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

3.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

102.0 [28.58, 175.42]

3.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

118.00 [46.83, 189.17]

4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.4
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

4.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.4 [‐0.26, 3.06]

4.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.6 [‐0.05, 3.25]

6 Dynamic balance lateral axis (degrees): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.6
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 6 Dynamic balance lateral axis (degrees): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 6 Dynamic balance lateral axis (degrees): higher values indicate better balance ability.

6.1 Average position (degrees)

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.46, 0.06]

6.2 Amplitude (degrees)

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.50 [‐4.01, ‐0.99]

7 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.7
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 7 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 7 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

7.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐7.08, 1.08]

7.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐7.12, 1.12]

8 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.8
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 8 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 8 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

8.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [‐1.20, 3.20]

8.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.0 [‐3.75, 1.75]

9 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): Higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

95

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [‐0.26, 0.57]
Analysis 5.9
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): Higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): Higher values indicate better balance ability.

10 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

69

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐0.89, 1.69]
Analysis 5.10
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

11 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

69

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.30 [‐4.05, ‐0.55]
Analysis 5.11
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 11 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 11 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

12 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

69

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.90 [3.91, 21.89]
Analysis 5.12
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 12 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 12 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

13 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

10.92 [5.03, 16.81]
Analysis 5.13
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 13 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 13 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

14 Self paced gait velocity (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.14
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 14 Self paced gait velocity (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 14 Self paced gait velocity (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability.

14.1 Immediately post intervention

2

73

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [‐0.26, 0.67]

14.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [‐0.12, 1.00]

15 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.15
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 15 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 15 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

15.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.01, 0.13]

15.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.01, 0.17]

16 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 5.16
Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 16 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 16 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

16.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐0.07, 1.07]

16.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.3 [‐0.37, 0.97]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. General physical activity (cycling) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.1
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

1.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐15.0 [‐32.22, 2.22]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐12.0 [‐33.05, 9.05]

2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.2
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

2.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.8 [‐2.12, 0.52]

2.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.80 [0.00, 0.40]

3 Area narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.3
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 3 Area narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 3 Area narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

3.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

38.0 [‐19.93, 95.93]

3.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

55.00 [‐1.38, 111.38]

4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.4
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

4.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [‐0.87, 2.87]

4.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [‐0.66, 3.26]

5 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.5
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 5 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 5 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

5.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐2.57, 2.57]

5.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐5.09, 1.09]

6 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.6
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 6 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 6 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

6.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.0 [‐4.87, 2.87]

6.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.0 [‐10.13, 0.13]

7 Self paced gait velocity post‐pre change scores (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.7
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 7 Self paced gait velocity post‐pre change scores (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 7 Self paced gait velocity post‐pre change scores (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability.

7.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.00 [‐3.77, 9.77]

7.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [‐1.20, 7.20]

8 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.8
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 8 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 8 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

8.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09]

8.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.02, 0.16]

9 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 6.9
Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 9 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 9 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

9.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.1 [‐0.62, 0.82]

9.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.3 [‐0.47, 1.07]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 7. Multiple exercise types versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional base of support (distance) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.1
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 1 Functional base of support (distance) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 1 Functional base of support (distance) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

1.1 Immediately post intervention

1

32

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.03, 0.15]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.02, 0.16]

2 Maximal balance range (cm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

595

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [‐1.29, 2.81]
Analysis 7.2
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 2 Maximal balance range (cm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 2 Maximal balance range (cm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

3 Total distance travelled by COP during quiet stance (mm): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.3
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 3 Total distance travelled by COP during quiet stance (mm): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 3 Total distance travelled by COP during quiet stance (mm): lower values indicate better balance ability.

3.1 Eyes open

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

97.15 [18.59, 175.71]

3.2 Eyes closed

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

212.52 [114.79, 310.25]

4 Sway (mm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.4
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 4 Sway (mm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 4 Sway (mm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

4.1 Floor, eyes open (immediately post intervention)

3

893

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.08 [‐0.41, 0.24]

4.2 Floor, eyes closed (immediately post intervention)

3

893

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.24, 0.04]

4.3 Foam, eyes open (immediately post intervention)

3

893

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.59, 0.23]

4.4 Foam, eyes closed (immediately post intervention)

3

893

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.31, 0.11]

5 Body sway (cm): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.87 [‐1.60, ‐0.13]
Analysis 7.5
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 5 Body sway (cm): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 5 Body sway (cm): lower values indicate better balance ability.

6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.6
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

6.1 Immediately post intervention

1

53

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐1.86, 0.66]

6.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

43

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐1.59, 1.19]

7 Co‐ordinated stability (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

829

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.76 [‐1.97, 0.44]
Analysis 7.7
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 7 Co‐ordinated stability (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 7 Co‐ordinated stability (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

8 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.8
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 8 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 8 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

8.1 Immediately post intervention

4

202

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [‐0.85, 3.44]

8.2 Follow up @ 6 months post intervention

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.80 [‐4.73, 10.33]

9 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.03 [‐0.29, 4.35]
Analysis 7.9
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

10 Semitandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.10
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 10 Semitandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 10 Semitandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

10.1 Immediately post intervention

1

67

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [‐0.52, 2.52]

10.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [‐0.63, 3.43]

11 Parallel stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.11
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 11 Parallel stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 11 Parallel stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

11.1 Immediately post intervention

1

67

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [‐0.47, 2.07]

11.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐1.66, 1.06]

12 Tandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.12
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 12 Tandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 12 Tandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

12.1 Immediately post intervention

1

67

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.90 [0.06, 3.74]

12.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [‐0.64, 3.04]

13 Tandem walk (number of steps): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.39 [1.75, 5.03]
Analysis 7.13
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 13 Tandem walk (number of steps): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 13 Tandem walk (number of steps): higher values indicate better balance ability.

14 Tandem walk (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

70

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐8.10 [‐13.71, ‐2.49]
Analysis 7.14
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 14 Tandem walk (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 14 Tandem walk (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

15 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.80 [3.37, 8.23]
Analysis 7.15
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 15 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 15 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

16 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

6

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 7.16
Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 16 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 16 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

16.1 Immediately post intervention

6

264

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.38, 0.11]

16.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

50

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.37 [‐0.19, 0.93]

16.3 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

58

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.63, 0.40]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 8. Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 (01.10) Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 8.1
Comparison 8 Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering, Outcome 1 (01.10) Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering, Outcome 1 (01.10) Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

1.1 Immediately post intervention

4

164

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.02, 0.64]

2 (01.14) Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 8.2
Comparison 8 Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering, Outcome 2 (01.14) Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering, Outcome 2 (01.14) Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

2.1 Immediately post intervention

4

176

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.07, 0.53]

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 5 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate greater balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 5 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate greater balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 7 Maxium excursion of limits of stability (LOS) test: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 7 Maxium excursion of limits of stability (LOS) test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 8 Single leg stance eyes open (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 8 Single leg stance eyes open (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance eyes closed (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance eyes closed (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 12 Functional Reach Test: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 12 Functional Reach Test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 13 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 13 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 14 Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 14 Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 15 Walking on a beam (m): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 15 Walking on a beam (m): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 16 Berg Balance Scale (score out of 56) higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control, Outcome 16 Berg Balance Scale (score out of 56) higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 1 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 1 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 2 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 2 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 3 Tilt board (s) post‐pre change scores: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 3 Tilt board (s) post‐pre change scores: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 4 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 4 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 5 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 5 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 6 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 6 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 7 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 7 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 8 Functional Reach Test (FRT) (cm) pre‐post change scores: lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 8 Functional Reach Test (FRT) (cm) pre‐post change scores: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 9 Timed up and go test (TUG) (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 9 Timed up and go test (TUG) (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 10 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 10 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 11 Balance beam: post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 Strengthening exercise versus control, Outcome 11 Balance beam: post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 5 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 5 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 6 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 6 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 7 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 7 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 8 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 8 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 9 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 9 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.11

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 12 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.12

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 12 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 13 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.13

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 13 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 14 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.14

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 14 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 15 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.15

Comparison 3 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control, Outcome 15 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 1 Postural sway double stance (post‐pre change scores): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 1 Postural sway double stance (post‐pre change scores): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 2 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 2 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 3 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 General physical activity versus control, Outcome 3 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 3 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 3 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 6 Dynamic balance lateral axis (degrees): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 6 Dynamic balance lateral axis (degrees): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 7 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 7 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 8 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 8 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): Higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): Higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.10

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 10 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 11 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.11

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 11 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 12 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.12

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 12 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 13 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.13

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 13 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 14 Self paced gait velocity (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.14

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 14 Self paced gait velocity (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 15 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.15

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 15 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 16 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.16

Comparison 5 General physical activity (walking) versus control, Outcome 16 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 3 Area narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 3 Area narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 5 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 5 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 6 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 6 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 7 Self paced gait velocity post‐pre change scores (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 7 Self paced gait velocity post‐pre change scores (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 8 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.8

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 8 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 9 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.9

Comparison 6 General physical activity (cycling) versus control, Outcome 9 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 1 Functional base of support (distance) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 1 Functional base of support (distance) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 2 Maximal balance range (cm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 2 Maximal balance range (cm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 3 Total distance travelled by COP during quiet stance (mm): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 3 Total distance travelled by COP during quiet stance (mm): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 4 Sway (mm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 4 Sway (mm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 5 Body sway (cm): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 5 Body sway (cm): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 7 Co‐ordinated stability (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 7 Co‐ordinated stability (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 8 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 8 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.9

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 9 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 10 Semitandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.10

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 10 Semitandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 11 Parallel stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.11

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 11 Parallel stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 12 Tandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.12

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 12 Tandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 13 Tandem walk (number of steps): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.13

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 13 Tandem walk (number of steps): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 14 Tandem walk (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.14

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 14 Tandem walk (s): lower values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 15 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.15

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 15 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 16 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.16

Comparison 7 Multiple exercise types versus control, Outcome 16 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering, Outcome 1 (01.10) Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering, Outcome 1 (01.10) Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering, Outcome 2 (01.14) Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering, Outcome 2 (01.14) Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Table 1. Glossary of terms

Glossary

1RM ‐ one repetition maximum score
3D ‐ 3D exercise including tai chi, qi gong, dance, yoga
ADL ‐ Activities of Daily Living
AP ‐ Anterior ‐ Posterior
BBS ‐ Berg Balance Scale
BPM ‐ Balance Performance Monitor
cm ‐ centimetres
CoM: body's centre of mass
COP ‐ centre of pressure
COPD ‐ Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
EPESE ‐ Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly short physical performance battery
Ex ‐ Exercise
FRT ‐ Function Reach Test
GBFT ‐ Gait, balance, functional tasks
GEN ACTIVITY ‐ general physical activity
HR ‐ Heart Rate
Hr ‐ hour
Km‐ kilometres
LOS ‐ Locus Of Support
min ‐ minute
ML ‐ medio‐lateral
mm ‐ millimetres
MMSE ‐ Mini Mental Status Examination
m/s ‐ metres per second
NSD ‐ no significant difference
PNF ‐ proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
PRE ‐ Progressive Resistance Exercise
RCT ‐ randomised controlled trial
RMS ‐ root mean squared
s ‐ seconds
SD ‐ Standard Deviation
SLS ‐ Single Legged Stance
SMD ‐ standardised mean difference
STRENGTH ‐ strength training including resistance or power training
TUG ‐ Timed up and go test
WMD ‐ weighted mean difference

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Glossary of terms
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 2. Methodological quality assessment items and possible scores

Items and scores

M‐A (D1b). Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed prior to allocation?
2 = method did not allow disclosure of assignment.
1 = small but possible chance of disclosure of assignment or unclear.
0 = quasi‐randomised or open list/tables.

Cochrane code: Clearly Yes = A; Not sure = B; Clearly No = C

M‐B (D8). Were the outcomes of patients/participants who withdrew described and included in the analysis (intention to treat)?
2 = withdrawals well described and accounted for in analysis.
1 = withdrawals described and analysis not possible.
0 = no mention, inadequate mention, or obvious differences and no adjustment.

M‐C (D4). Were the outcome assessors blinded to treatment status?
2 = effective action taken to blind assessors.
1 = small or moderate chance of unblinding of assessors.
0 = not mentioned or not possible.

M‐D (D2). Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry?
2 = good comparability of groups, or confounding adjusted for in analysis.
1 = confounding small; mentioned but not adjusted for.
0 = large potential for confounding, or not discussed.

M‐E (D6). Were the participants blind to assignment status after allocation?
2 = effective action taken to blind participants.
1 = small or moderate chance of unblinding of participants.
0 = not possible, or not mentioned (unless double‐blind), or possible but not done.

M‐F (D5). Were the treatment providers blind to assignment status?
2 = effective action taken to blind treatment providers.
1 = small or moderate chance of unblinding of treatment providers.
0 = not possible, or not mentioned (unless double‐blind), or possible but not done.

M‐G. Were care programmes, other than the trial options, identical?
2 = care programmes clearly identical.
1 = clear but trivial differences.
0 = not mentioned or clear and important differences in care programmes.

M‐H (D3). Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?
2 = clearly defined.
1 = inadequately defined.
0 = not defined.

M‐I. Were the interventions clearly defined?
2 = clearly defined interventions are applied with a standardised protocol.
1 = clearly defined interventions are applied but the application protocol is not standardised.
0 = intervention and/or application protocol are poorly or not defined.

M‐J. Were the outcome measures used clearly defined?
2 = clearly defined.
1 = inadequately defined.
0 = not defined.

M‐K. Were tests used in outcome assessment clinically useful?
2 = optimal.
1 = adequate.
0 = not defined, not adequate.

M‐L. Was the surveillance active, and of clinically appropriate duration (i.e. at least 3 months)?
2 = active surveillance and appropriate duration (3 months follow up or more).
1 = active surveillance, but inadequate duration (less than 3 months follow up).
0 = surveillance not active or not defined.

D7. Were point estimates and measures of variability presented for the primary outcome measures?
2 = yes
1 = point estimates, but no measures of variability presented
0 = vague descriptions

MAC‐1. Was the compliance rate in each group likely to cause bias?
2 = compliance well described and accounted for in analysis
1 = compliance well described but differences between groups not accounted for in analysis
0 = compliance unclear

MAC‐2. Was there a description of adverse effects of the intervention(s)?
2 = well described
1 = poorly described
0 = not described

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Methodological quality assessment items and possible scores
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 3. Methodological quality assessment scores M‐A (D1b) to M‐G

Study ID

M‐A (D1b)

M‐B (D8)

M‐C (D4)

M‐D (D2)

M‐E (D6)

M‐F (D5)

M‐G

Boshuizen 2005

1

2

2

2

0

0

0

Brouwer 2003

1

1

0

2

0

0

0

Buchner 1997a

1

2

1

2

0

0

0

Buchner 1997b

1

2

2

2

0

0

0

Cress 1999

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

Crilly 1989

1

2

0

2

0

0

0

Islam 2004

2

2

0

2

0

0

0

Jessup 2003

1

2

2

2

0

0

0

Johansson 1991

1

1

2

2

0

0

0

Krebs 1998

1

1

1

2

0

0

2

Lichtenstein 1989

2

1

0

1

2

0

0

Lord 1995

2

2

2

2

0

0

2

Lord 2003

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

Lord 2005

1

1

2

2

0

0

0

MacRae 1994

2

0

0

0

2

0

2

McGarry 2001

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

McMurdo 1993

2

2

2

2

0

0

0

Nelson 2004

1

1

2

2

0

0

0

Okumiya 1996

1

1

2

2

0

0

0

Paillard 2004

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

Ramsbottom 2004

2

2

0

1

0

0

2

Reinsch 1992

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

Rooks 1997a

1

0

0

2

1

0

0

Rubenstein 2000

1

0

1

2

0

1

2

Sauvage 1992

1

0

2

2

0

0

2

Schoenfelder 2004

1

0

1

1

2

0

0

Shigematsu 2002

1

0

0

2

2

0

2

Shimada 2004

1

1

0

2

0

0

2

Sihvonen 2004

1

1

0

2

0

0

2

Suzuki 2004

1

2

2

2

0

0

2

Wolf 1997

1

0

0

2

0

0

2

Wolf 2001

2

2

1

2

0

0

2

Wolfson 1996

2

1

2

2

0

2

2

Zhang 2006

0

0

0

2

0

0

2
Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Methodological quality assessment scores M‐A (D1b) to M‐G
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 4. Methodological quality assessment scores M‐H (D3) to MAC‐2

Study ID

M‐H (D3)

M‐I

M‐J

M‐K

M‐L

D7

MAC‐1

MAC‐2

Boshuizen 2005

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

0

Brouwer 2003

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

0

Buchner 1997a

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

Buchner 1997b

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

Cress 1999

2

2

2

2

0

2

0

0

Crilly 1989

2

0

2

1

1

2

0

0

Islam 2004

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

Jessup 2003

2

2

2

1

2

2

0

0

Johansson 1991

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

0

Krebs 1998

2

2

2

1

0

2

2

0

Lichtenstein 1989

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

Lord 1995

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

Lord 2003

0

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

Lord 2005

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

0

MacRae 1994

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

0

McGarry 2001

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

McMurdo 1993

2

2

2

1

2

0

1

0

Nelson 2004

2

2

2

2

0

2

1

2

Okumiya 1996

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

0

Paillard 2004

2

2

2

1

0

2

0

0

Ramsbottom 2004

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

0

Reinsch 1992

1

2

2

1

0

2

1

0

Rooks 1997a

2

2

2

2

0

2

0

2

Rubenstein 2000

2

2

2

2

0

2

0

0

Sauvage 1992

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

0

Schoenfelder 2004

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

0

Shigematsu 2002

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

0

Shimada 2004

1

2

2

2

0

2

2

1

Sihvonen 2004

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

0

Suzuki 2004

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

Wolf 1997

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

Wolf 2001

2

2

2

1

2

2

0

0

Wolfson 1996

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Zhang 2006

1

2

2

2

0

2

2

0
Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Methodological quality assessment scores M‐H (D3) to MAC‐2
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Immediately post intervention

3

116

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.71 [‐1.33, ‐0.09]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 6 weeks post intervention

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.63 [‐1.37, 0.10]

1.3 Follow‐up @ 4 months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.96 [‐1.67, ‐0.26]

2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Immediately post intervention

3

116

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐0.98, 0.20]

2.2 Follow‐up @ 6 weeks post intervention

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.68 [‐1.42, 0.06]

2.3 Follow‐up @ 4 months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.37, 1.81]

3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Immediately post intervention

2

82

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.32 [‐0.77, 0.12]

3.2 Follow up @ 4months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.13 [‐0.79, 0.54]

4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Immediately post intervention

2

82

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.60, 0.27]

4.2 Follow up @ 4 months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.82, 0.51]

5 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate greater balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Immediately post intervention

1

35

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.05, 0.19]

5.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [0.01, 0.15]

6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Immediately post intervention

1

53

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.1 [‐2.24, 0.04]

6.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.1 [‐2.16, ‐0.04]

7 Maxium excursion of limits of stability (LOS) test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Forward

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

20.10 [8.66, 31.54]

7.2 Backward

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.90 [‐1.77, 19.57]

7.3 Right

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

19.0 [9.02, 28.98]

7.4 Left

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.80 [4.10, 21.50]

8 Single leg stance eyes open (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Average XY area per second (square inches per second)

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.57, 0.61]

8.2 Average radial area per second (square inches per second)

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.05 [‐0.26, 0.16]

8.3 Average velocity (inches per second)

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.62, 0.86]

9 Single leg stance eyes closed (force platform measures): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 Average XY area per second (square inches per second)

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.41 [‐1.85, 1.03]

9.2 Average radial area per second (square inches per second)

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.93 [‐2.05, 0.19]

9.3 Average velocity (inches per second)

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐2.04, 0.94]

10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Immediately post intervention

4

164

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.02, 0.64]

10.2 Follow up @ 6 months post intervention

1

37

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.33, 0.97]

11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐1.20, 1.20]

12 Functional Reach Test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [‐1.71, 2.91]

13 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.5 [‐3.49, 0.49]

14 Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Immediately post intervention

4

176

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.07, 0.53]

14.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

45

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [‐0.28, 0.90]

14.3 Follow‐up @ 6 weeks post intervention

1

30

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.42, 1.03]

15 Walking on a beam (m): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.18, 0.18]

16 Berg Balance Scale (score out of 56) higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 Immediately post intervention

3

126

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.72 [0.94, 4.50]

16.2 Follow up @ 4 weeks post intervention

1

77

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.60 [‐1.96, 9.16]

16.3 Follow up @ 1 year post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [‐7.29, 8.63]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Gait, balance, co‐ordination, functional tasks exercise versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Strengthening exercise versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional base of support during dynamic test (distance): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Immediately post intervention

1

34

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.01 [‐0.09, 0.07]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

27

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10]

2 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.40 [‐1.66, 0.86]

2.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐1.63, 1.43]

3 Tilt board (s) post‐pre change scores: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Omnidirectional tilt board (s)

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.0 [‐7.89, ‐0.11]

3.2 AP tilt board (s)

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.0 [‐4.32, 2.32]

4 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

170

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.08, 0.70]

5 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Immediately post intervention

2

119

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [‐0.31, 1.32]

5.2 Follow up @ 6 months post intervention

1

31

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.80, 0.63]

6 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

81

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐4.40, 0.40]

7 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

165

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.24 [‐0.34, 0.82]

8 Functional Reach Test (FRT) (cm) pre‐post change scores: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.33 [‐6.00, ‐0.66]

9 Timed up and go test (TUG) (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.5 [‐9.70, 2.70]

10 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Immediately post intervention

5

304

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.02, 0.48]

10.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

42

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.24 [‐0.37, 0.85]

11 Balance beam: post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Wide beam

2

100

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.55, 0.26]

11.2 Narrow beam

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐0.14, 1.14]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Strengthening exercise versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 AP stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Immediately post intervention

2

87

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.66, 0.19]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [‐0.40, 0.75]

1.3 Follow‐up @ 4 months post intervention

1

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.82, 0.52]

2 Mediolateral stability during stance (quiet and dynamic) eyes open: lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Immediately post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.34, 0.94]

2.3 Follow‐up @ 4 months post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.34, 0.94]

3 AP stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Immediately post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [‐0.43, 0.84]

3.2 Follow up @ 4months post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [‐0.29, 0.99]

4 Mediolateral stability during quiet stance eyes closed: lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Immediately post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.63, 0.64]

4.2 Follow up @ 4 months post intervention

1

38

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.57, 0.70]

5 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐21.89, 17.89]

5.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [‐17.47, 23.47]

6 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐1.14, 0.94]

6.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐1.11, 1.11]

7 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

29.00 [‐28.94, 86.94]

7.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

39.0 [‐19.01, 97.01]

8 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.4 [‐1.23, 2.03]

8.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐1.28, 2.08]

9 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐7.08, 1.08]

9.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.0 [‐7.54, 1.54]

10 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

85

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.13 [‐0.17, 2.44]

11 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.20 [‐3.80, 1.40]

12 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

38

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.80 [‐1.05, 6.65]

13 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Immediately post intervention

2

99

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.34, 0.45]

13.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

48

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.48, 0.68]

14 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.1 [‐0.16, ‐0.04]

14.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.17, 0.03]

15 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.8 [‐0.01, 1.61]

15.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [‐0.08, 1.48]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. 3D (Tai Chi, Gi Gong, dance, yoga) versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 4. General physical activity versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Postural sway double stance (post‐pre change scores): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Eyes open

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.70 [‐17.59, 4.19]

1.2 Eyes closed

1

41

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.70 [‐26.82, 15.42]

2 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

11.8 [7.75, 15.85]

3 Timed up and go test (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.9 [‐5.83, ‐1.97]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. General physical activity versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 5. General physical activity (walking) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.0 [‐24.10, 16.10]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [‐19.26, 21.26]

2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.5 [‐1.54, 0.54]

2.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.4 [‐1.47, 0.67]

3 Area during narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

102.0 [28.58, 175.42]

3.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

118.00 [46.83, 189.17]

4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.4 [‐0.26, 3.06]

4.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.6 [‐0.05, 3.25]

6 Dynamic balance lateral axis (degrees): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Average position (degrees)

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.46, 0.06]

6.2 Amplitude (degrees)

1

21

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.50 [‐4.01, ‐0.99]

7 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐7.08, 1.08]

7.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.00 [‐7.12, 1.12]

8 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [‐1.20, 3.20]

8.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.0 [‐3.75, 1.75]

9 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): Higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

95

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.15 [‐0.26, 0.57]

10 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

69

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐0.89, 1.69]

11 Tandem walk over 10 feet (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

69

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.30 [‐4.05, ‐0.55]

12 Tandem stance (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

69

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

12.90 [3.91, 21.89]

13 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

10.92 [5.03, 16.81]

14 Self paced gait velocity (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 Immediately post intervention

2

73

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.21 [‐0.26, 0.67]

14.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

51

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [‐0.12, 1.00]

15 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.01, 0.13]

15.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.01, 0.17]

16 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 Immediately post intervention

1

52

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐0.07, 1.07]

16.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.3 [‐0.37, 0.97]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. General physical activity (walking) versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 6. General physical activity (cycling) versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Area during narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐15.0 [‐32.22, 2.22]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐12.0 [‐33.05, 9.05]

2 Angular radius narrow stance eyes open post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.8 [‐2.12, 0.52]

2.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.80 [0.00, 0.40]

3 Area narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm2/s): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

38.0 [‐19.93, 95.93]

3.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

55.00 [‐1.38, 111.38]

4 Angular radius narrow stance eyes closed post‐pre change scores (mm): lower values indicate better balance Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [‐0.87, 2.87]

4.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [‐0.66, 3.26]

5 AP tilt board post‐pre change score (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐2.57, 2.57]

5.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.0 [‐5.09, 1.09]

6 Omnidirectional tilt board post‐pre change scores (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.0 [‐4.87, 2.87]

6.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.0 [‐10.13, 0.13]

7 Self paced gait velocity post‐pre change scores (m/min): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.00 [‐3.77, 9.77]

7.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [‐1.20, 7.20]

8 Wide balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09]

8.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.02, 0.16]

9 Narrow balance beam post‐pre change scores (m/s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 Immediately post intervention

1

51

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.1 [‐0.62, 0.82]

9.2 Follow‐up @3 months post intervention

1

49

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.3 [‐0.47, 1.07]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. General physical activity (cycling) versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 7. Multiple exercise types versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Functional base of support (distance) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Immediately post intervention

1

32

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.03, 0.15]

1.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

26

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.02, 0.16]

2 Maximal balance range (cm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

595

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [‐1.29, 2.81]

3 Total distance travelled by COP during quiet stance (mm): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Eyes open

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

97.15 [18.59, 175.71]

3.2 Eyes closed

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

212.52 [114.79, 310.25]

4 Sway (mm) during dynamic test: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Floor, eyes open (immediately post intervention)

3

893

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.08 [‐0.41, 0.24]

4.2 Floor, eyes closed (immediately post intervention)

3

893

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.24, 0.04]

4.3 Foam, eyes open (immediately post intervention)

3

893

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.59, 0.23]

4.4 Foam, eyes closed (immediately post intervention)

3

893

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.31, 0.11]

5 Body sway (cm): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

35

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.87 [‐1.60, ‐0.13]

6 Loss of balance during sensory organisation test (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Immediately post intervention

1

53

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐1.86, 0.66]

6.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

43

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐1.59, 1.19]

7 Co‐ordinated stability (errors): less errors indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

3

829

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.76 [‐1.97, 0.44]

8 Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Immediately post intervention

4

202

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [‐0.85, 3.44]

8.2 Follow up @ 6 months post intervention

1

33

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.80 [‐4.73, 10.33]

9 Single leg stance time eyes closed (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.03 [‐0.29, 4.35]

10 Semitandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Immediately post intervention

1

67

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [‐0.52, 2.52]

10.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [‐0.63, 3.43]

11 Parallel stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Immediately post intervention

1

67

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [‐0.47, 2.07]

11.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐1.66, 1.06]

12 Tandem stance time (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Immediately post intervention

1

67

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.90 [0.06, 3.74]

12.2 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [‐0.64, 3.04]

13 Tandem walk (number of steps): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

39

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.39 [1.75, 5.03]

14 Tandem walk (s): lower values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

1

70

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐8.10 [‐13.71, ‐2.49]

15 Functional Reach Test (cm): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

2

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.80 [3.37, 8.23]

16 Gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

6

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

16.1 Immediately post intervention

6

264

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.38, 0.11]

16.2 Follow‐up @ 6 months post intervention

1

50

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.37 [‐0.19, 0.93]

16.3 Follow‐up @ 3 months post intervention

1

58

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.63, 0.40]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Multiple exercise types versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 8. Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 (01.10) Single leg stance time eyes open (s): higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Immediately post intervention

4

164

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.02, 0.64]

2 (01.14) Self paced gait speed: higher values indicate better balance ability Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Immediately post intervention

4

176

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [‐0.07, 0.53]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. Sensitivity analyses for effect of clustering
Ir a la tabla de la revisión