ArticlePloS one2023
Test-retest reliability of the single leg stance on a Lafayette stability platform.
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 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.
- Effects of different support surfaces on postural stability and sensorimotor cortex activation among individuals with chronic ankle instability.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Effects of balance training combined with stroboscopic visual training on balance ability in college-aged male soccer players.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Article
- Utilizing Balance Assessment Tools by Physical Therapists for Patients with Balance Disorders.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Combined Strength of Standardized Lab Sprint Testing and Wheelchair Mobility Field Testing in Wheelchair Tennis Players.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Effect of Progressive Balance Control Strategies on Chronic Ankle Instability in Middle-Aged Obese Women.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The validity and reliability of the Lafayette stability platform are well-established for double leg testing. However, no evaluation of single leg (SL) stance on the platform was discovered yet. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the reliability of conducting the SL stance on the Lafayette platform. Thirty-six healthy and active university students (age 23.2 ± 3.2 years; BMI 21.1 ± 3.1 kg/m2) were tested twice, one week apart (week 1; W1, week 2; W2). They stood on their dominant leg with eyes-open (EO) and eyes-closed (EC) in random order. Three successful trials of 20 seconds each were recorded. The duration during which the platform was maintained within 0° of tilt was referred to as time in balance (TIB). At all-time points, TIB was consistently longer in EO (EOW1: 17.02 ± 1.04s; EOW2: 17.32 ± 1.03s) compared to EC (ECW1: 11.55 ± 1.73s; ECW2: 13.08 ± 1.82s). A ±10 seconds difference was demonstrated in the Bland-Altman analysis in both EO and EC. Lower standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) indicated consistent output. High intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values were seen between weeks (EO = 0.74; EC = 0.76) and within weeks (EOW1 = 0.79; EOW2 = 0.86; ECW1 = 0.71; ECW2 = 0.71). Although statistical measures (i.e., SEM, CV, and ICC) indicated good reliability of Lafayette for SL tasks, the wide agreement interval is yet to be clinically meaningful. Factors underlying the wide variation need to be identified before Lafayette is used for TIB assessment.
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.