Trial reportScientific reports2025
Effects of balance-based visual reaction time exercises on cognitive and physical performance in older adults: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Technological approaches that promote cognitive-motor abilities through visual information have recently become increasingly prevalent. This study aims to verify the effects of balance-based visual reaction time exercises on physical and cognitive performance in older adults. In this randomized controlled trial, 31 participants (aged 71.70 ± 5.67 years) were randomly allocated into two groups. The intervention group (n = 16) was enrolled in a balanced-based visual reaction exercise program, and the control group (n = 15) in a functional balance exercise program. The participants were assessed both prior to and following the intervention. Primary outcomes included global cognitive function, assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); executive function, measured through the Stroop Test; and reaction time, evaluated using the BlazePod system and the New Test. Secondary outcomes focused on physical performance and included the Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), Four Square Step Test (FSST), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and the Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) to assess fear of falling. At reassessment, the intervention group exhibited a significantly faster reaction time and made fewer mistakes on the Stroop test compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The intervention group also exhibited better physical performance and less fear of falling (p < 0.05). However, no significant improvements were observed in global cognitive function, as measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), or in Stroop Interference scores (p [Formula: see text] 0.05). Two-model multiple linear regression analysis revealed that the changes in BlazePod reaction affected the improvement in TUG (β = 0.006, adjusted R
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.