ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2015
Reliability of modified sensory interaction test as measured with force platform.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Questioning the lasting effect of galvanic vestibular stimulation on postural control.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Motion sickness susceptibility modulates the impact of electrical vestibular stimulation on postural control.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sport dependent effects on the sensory control of balance during upright posture: a comparison between professional horseback riders, judokas and non-athletes.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- The Effects of Exergaming on Sensory Reweighting and Mediolateral Stability of Women Aged Over 60: Usability Study.JMIR serious games · 2021Article
- Sensory Sub- and Suprathreshold TENS Exhibit No Immediate Effect on Postural Steadiness in Older Adults with No Balance Impairments.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Uncertainty assessment of gamma-aminobutyric acid concentration of different brain regions in individual and group using residual bootstrap analysis.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The test-retest reliability of the modified sensory interaction test on a force platform was performed in a group of 26 young and 15 elderly females for four sensory conditions: standing on firm and compliant surface with eyes open and closed. The test-retest reliability was good to excellent in both groups, with higher level of test-retest reliability in more demanding conditions. The most reliable time-domain variables for standing on firm surface with eyes open were: sway area from principal components (ICC = 0.77) for young and mean velocity, medio-lateral and total path lengths (ICC = 0.91) for elderly. For eyes closed, the most reliable variables were antero-posterior path length and sway area calculated by Fourier coefficients (ICC = 0.85) for young and medio-lateral path length (ICC = 0.93) for elderly. For compliant surface with open eyes, the most reliable variable was medio-lateral variability (ICC = 0.83) for young and total path length and mean velocity (ICC = 0.92) for elderly participants, whereas for eyes closed the most reliable variables were mean velocity, total and medio-lateral path lengths for young, and mean velocity for elderly group, all with ICC = 0.90. Modified sensory interaction test is therefore a reliable measure for balance and could be recommended as an outcome measure for balance retraining programmes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.