ReviewCureus2026
Mapping the Effectiveness of Compensatory Stepping Training for Balance and Fall Prevention in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among older adults, falls are a leading cause of injury, mortality, and hospitalization globally. For fall prevention, perturbation-based protocols targeting reactive responses are used in compensatory stepping training (CST). However, compared with conventional interventions, evidence on the efficacy of CST remains underexplored. Hence, this scoping review maps the current evidence on the effectiveness and outcomes of CST in older adults for reducing falls and enhancing balance confidence compared with conventional interventions, thereby identifying gaps and providing recommendations. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed and ScienceDirect databases regarding CST versus conventional therapy from January 2000 to December 2025. Seven studies (n = 12-102; 2008-2021) were included based on the eligibility criteria. Conventional therapies showed comparable functional gains but limited perturbation transfer. CST improved reactive balance, with 31% fewer recovery steps, 15-17% faster step initiation, and improved kinematic adaptability, along with 56-74% prospective fall reductions and high feasibility, reflected by 75-100% adherence and no adverse events. Frail subgroup exclusion, small sample sizes, and short follow-up periods were identified as gaps. For fall prevention and reactive balance, CST offers task-specific promise in terms of kinematic efficiency and scalability. To address psychological outcomes and optimize clinical integration, future trials should focus on multidirectional protocols with larger samples, including high-risk populations, along with assessment of long-term effects.
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.