Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

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