ArticlePeerJ2024
Responsiveness of monopodal postural stability tests in recreational athletes.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stabilometry, the modified Star Excursion Balance Test (mSEBT) or the Emery balance test (EBT) are reported in the literature to reflect changes after an intervention in monopodal postural stability. Even so, the responsiveness of those tests has not been evaluated after an instability training programme or analysed using multiple statistical indicators of responsiveness. The main aim of this study was to analyse the responsiveness of the stabilometry, mSEBT or EBT. Methods: Thirty healthy recreational athletes performed a 4-week programme with three weekly sessions of instability training of the dominant lower limb and were evaluated using stabilometry, mSEBT, and EBT tests. Responsiveness was quantified based on internal and external responsiveness. Results: EBT and all parameters in mSEBT for the dominant lower limb showed large internal responsiveness (SRM > 0.8). Furthermore, mSEBT values for the non-dominant lower limb (except anterior displacement) also experienced significant changes with an associated large internal responsiveness. None of the stabilometry platform parameters showed a significant change after the intervention. The ability of the EBT to discriminate between the dominant and non-dominant lower limb ( Conclusions: EBT showed a positive responsiveness after instability training compared to mSEBT, which only showed internal responsiveness, or stabilometry platform measures, whose none of the parameters could identify these changes.
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.