ArticleGait & posture2021
Normative database of postural sway measures using inertial sensors in typically developing children and young adults.
Article in Gait & posture, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Segmental Postural Control During Reaching in Typically Developing Children Using a Single Inertial Measurement Unit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Inertial Sensor-Based Assessment of Postural Control During Modified Romberg Conditions: Normative Reference Metrics from Healthy Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mapping EEG Metrics to Human Affective and Cognitive Models: An Interdisciplinary Scoping Review from a Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A dataset for detecting walking, grazing, and resting behaviors in free-grazing cattle using IoT collar IMU signals.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Normative values of spinal and peripheral proprioception in position sense among healthy adolescents and young adults.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Contemporary Normative Values for Five Common Static Standing Tasks on Firm and Compliant Floor Surfaces in Children Two to Thirteen Years.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Lifespan changes in postural control.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Mechanography in children: pediatric references in postural control.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2022Article
- Wearable sensors detect impaired gait and coordination in LBSL during remote assessments.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2022Article
- Incongruity of Geometric and Spectral Markers in the Assessment of Body Sway.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveReference values utilizing the APDM MobilityLab® inertial sensor system have not been established in children and young adults ages 5-30. These values are necessary for clinicians and researchers to compare to children with balance impairments.
methodsA group of 144 typically developing children and young adults from age 5-30 years completed the instrumented SWAY test during 6 test conditions: normal stance, firm surface, eyes open (EO) and closed (EC); normal stance, foam surface, EO and EC; and tandem stance, firm surface, EO and EC. Selected variables for normative outcomes included total sway area, and the mean, sagittal and coronal values for RMS sway, jerk, sway velocity and path length. Sex differences were examined within age groups via t tests. The effect of age on postural sway variables was analyzed using a one-way ANOVA for the mean values of total sway area, RMS sway, velocity and jerk, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons.
resultsAll sway parameters decreased significantly with age (p < 0.0001). Adult-like total sway area and jerk were achieved by ages 9-10 except for jerk during EC on foam. RMS sway and sway velocity reached adult levels by ages 11-13 during all EO and tandem stance conditions, and 14-21 with EC during normal stance on firm and foam surfaces for RMS sway and EC on firm surfaces for velocity. Females ages 5-6 performed more poorly during EO firm and EC foam for certain variables, but better during EO tandem and females ages 7-13 outperformed males when sex differences were found. SIGNIFICANCE: These reference values can now be used by clinicians and researchers to evaluate abnormal postural sway and response to interventions in children and young adults.
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.