ArticleJournal of sport rehabilitation2022
Interadministrator Reliability of a Modified Instrumented Push and Release Test of Reactive Balance.
Article in Journal of sport rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reactive Balance Deficits Differ in People After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Based on Chronicity of Self-Reported Symptoms.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Article
- Cortical activity during preparation and execution of balance recovery behavior in people after mild traumatic brain injury: A preliminary investigation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Acute and Longitudinal Effects of Concussion on Reactive Balance in Collegiate Athletes.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2025Article
- Predicting Real-World Physical Activity in Multiple Sclerosis: An Integrated Approach Using Clinical, Sensor-Based, and Self-Reported Measures.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Presence and origin of variability of the pull test and push-and-release test in people with Parkinson's disease.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- The Relation Among Reactive Stepping and Fall-Related Psychological Factors in Multiple Sclerosis.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Instrumented Static and Reactive Balance in Collegiate Athletes: Normative Values and Minimal Detectable Change.Journal of athletic training · 2024Article
- Effect of Progressive Balance Control Strategies on Chronic Ankle Instability in Middle-Aged Obese Women.Cureus · 2024Article
- Use of Reactive Balance Assessments With Clinical Baseline Concussion Assessments in Collegiate Athletes.Journal of athletic training · 2024Article
- Reactive postural responses predict risk for acute musculoskeletal injury in collegiate athletes.Journal of science and medicine in sport · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextTraditional assessments of reactive balance require sophisticated instrumentation to ensure objective, highly repeatable paradigms. This instrumentation is clinically impractical. The Push and Release test (P&R) is a well-validated clinical test that examines reactive balance, and the application of wearable inertial measurement units (IMU) enables sensitive and objective assessment of this clinically feasible test. The P&R relies on administrator experience and may be susceptible to interadministration reliability concerns. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interadministrator reliability of objective outcomes from an instrumented, modified version of the P&R test.
designCrossover interadministrator design.
methodsTwenty healthy adults (20-35 y) completed the P&R in 4 directions with 2 different administrators. Measures quantified using IMUs included step latency, step length, and time to stability. Lean angle (LA) at release was used as a measure of administration consistency. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimate was used to assess interadministrator reliability in each direction. To determine consistency of LA within and across administrators, we calculated the SDs for each rater by direction and the interadministrator reliability of LA using ICC.
resultsAcross individual directions, the ICC for agreement between raters ranged from .16 to .39 for step latency, from .52 to .62 for time to stability, and from .48 to .84 for step length. Summary metrics across all 4 directions produced higher ICC values. There was poor to moderate consistency in administration based on LA, but LA did not significantly affect any of the outcomes.
conclusionThe modified P&R yields moderate interadministrator reliability and high validity. Summary metrics over all 4 directions (the maximum step latency, the median time to stability, and the median step length) are likely more reliable than direction-specific scores. Variations in body size should also be considered when comparing populations.
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.