ReviewSports (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Reporting of Y Balance Test Measurement Procedures in Reliability and Validity Studies: A Scoping Review.
Review in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Y Balance Test (YBT) is widely used to assess dynamic balance and lower-limb function in both clinical and sports settings. However, substantial variability exists in YBT measurement procedures across studies, which may complicate interpretation of the reliability and validity findings. This scoping review aimed to systematically map the reporting frequency and heterogeneity of participant characteristics and measurement procedures in studies evaluating the reliability and/or validity of the YBT. This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 20 September 2025. Observational studies assessing the reliability and/or validity of the YBT were also included. Data on participant attributes and key measurement procedures, including practice trials, rest periods, upper-limb restrictions, heel lift allowance, and other protocol components, were extracted. A total of 32 studies involving 1701 participants were analyzed. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in the reporting of YBT measurement procedures across studies, with differences according to study design and participant characteristics. While practice trials and error criteria were frequently described, other factors that may influence outcomes, including warm-up protocols, rest periods, heel lift allowance, and trial order, were less consistently reported. Such variability may limit the interpretability and comparability of YBT findings. Notable gaps were identified in both reliability and validity studies, as well as in studies involving injured or clinical populations. These findings highlight the need for greater transparency and consistency in YBT reporting. Clearer reporting standards may improve evidence synthesis and the application of YBT findings.
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.