ArticleExperimental physiology2026
Improving coordination, proprioception, balance and motor proficiency in Down syndrome with developmental games.
Article in Experimental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clarifying Proprioceptive Training: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Improving coordination, proprioception, balance and motor proficiency in Down syndrome with developmental games.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the impact of corrective-developmental games on proprioception, coordination, balance and motor proficiency in individuals with Down syndrome. The current quasi-experimental study with pre-test and post-test design explores the impact of corrective-developmental games (fine-gross motor skill games and univariate-multivariate games) on the proprioception, coordination, balance and motor proficiency of individuals with Down syndrome. The research sample comprises 50 individuals with Down syndrome, with an average age of 17.38 years, divided into two groups: intervention (13 men and 13 women) and control (12 men and 12 women). After the pre-test, the intervention group participated in a series of games, including fine-gross games and univariate-multivariate games, for 8 weeks (24 1-h sessions in total). Mid-test and post-test were conducted after 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. To assess balance, the Stork test (test-retest reliability: 0.59), Sharpened Romberg test (reliability: 0.76-0.91) and Y Balance test (reliability: 0.84-0.87) were used. The Purdue Pegboard test and knee position sense with a goniometer (open and closed eyes) evaluated eye-hand coordination and sense of position. The Bruininks-Oseretsky test (retest coefficient: 0.78-0.86) measured motor proficiency. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant improvements in the intervention group for static balance (Stork test, P = 0.001), dynamic balance (Y test, P = 0.001), position sense (open eyes: P = 0.001, closed eyes: P = 0.001), two-hand coordination (P = 0.001), preferred hand coordination (P = 0.001), gross motor proficiency (P = 0.001), upper limb coordination (P = 0.001) and total motor proficiency (P = 0.001). The intervention group significantly outperformed the control group post-intervention on all measures except the Stork test and fine motor proficiency. The findings of this research confirm the beneficial effect of games-based interventions on motor fitness and corrective-developmental indicators in Down syndrome. Future studies should investigate the long-term impact on daily life activities and generalizability to similar populations. The results have potential implications for designing effective interventions to enhance motor skills in individuals with Down syndrome.
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.