ArticlePloS one2023
Validity and reliability of an unstable board for dynamic balance assessment in young adults.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wobble-Board Dynamics Identify Individual Signatures of Balance Control for Clinical Assessment.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Wobble-board dynamics as a scalable assay of long-latency reflex function in aging.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Exploring the relationship between static and dynamic balance performance through the same center-of-pressure parameters.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Back-in-Action test Battery In Uninjured High School American Football Players.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
- Sport-specific balance tests account for youth alpine skiers' ranking.Frontiers in physiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific literature is giving greater importance to dynamic balance in fall prevention. Recently, the validity and reliability of the most employed functional tests for dynamic balance assessment has been investigated. Although these functional tests are practical and require minimal equipment, they are inherently subjective, as most do not use instrumented measurement data in the scoring process. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of an instrumented unstable board for dynamic balance objective assessment in young adults through double-leg standing trials. A test-retest design was outlined with the unstable board positioned over a force platform to collect objective Center of Pressure (CoP) related and kinematic parameters. Fifteen young adults participated in two evaluation sessions (7-day apart) that comprised ten trials per two dynamic conditions (anterior-posterior and medio-lateral oscillations) aiming to maintain the board parallel to the ground. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was employed to assess the validity of the kinematic parameters with those derived from the CoP. The test-retest reliability was investigated through Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Standard Error of the measurement, Minimal Detectable Change, and Bland-Altman plots. Statistically significant correlations between the CoP and kinematic parameters were found, with r values ranging from 0.66 to 0.95. Good to excellent intrasession (0.89≤ICCs≤0.95) and intersession (0.66≤ICCs≤0.95) ICCs were found for the kinematics parameters. The Bland-Altman plots showed no significant systematic bias. The kinematics parameters derived from the unstable board resulted valid and reliable. The small size of the board makes it a suitable tool for the on-site dynamic balance assessment and a complement of computerized dynamic posturography.
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.