ArticlePhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2026
Test-Retest Reliability of Postural Sway Measures Using a Portable Low-Cost Force Plate in Healthy Adults.
Article in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeCenter of pressure (CoP) metrics derived from force plates are widely used to quantify postural control, but laboratory-grade systems limit routine clinical and field implementation. Portable low-cost force plates could enable physiotherapists to monitor balance longitudinally, provided that their measurements are sufficiently reliable and clinically interpretable. This study addresses a gap in the literature by systematically comparing the test-retest reliability of CoP outcomes across bipedal and single-leg stance conditions using a portable low-cost force plate, providing device-specific and task-specific validation data relevant to clinical and field-based implementation.
methodsThis test-retest reliability study included 27 healthy young adults who completed two laboratory sessions 7-10 days apart. In each session, participants performed three 30-s trials of bipedal quiet stance and three 30-s trials of single-leg stance on each leg barefoot with standardized arm position and visual fixation. Mean values across repetitions were analyzed. Relative reliability was assessed using two-way mixed-effects ICC for absolute agreement (3,1), with 95% confidence intervals. Absolute reliability was quantified using typical error (TE) and coefficient of variation (CV). Paired t-tests evaluated systematic between-session differences.
resultsAcross all outcomes, single-leg stance demonstrated substantially higher inter-session reliability compared to bipedal stance. Measures of total CoP displacement and velocity during single-leg stance exhibited good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.85-0.90) and low absolute error (CV ≈ 8%), with direction-specific displacements showing similarly consistent results (ICC = 0.83-0.90; CV generally < 10%). In contrast, the CoP ellipse area and standard deviation measures were considerably less stable (ICC = 0.57-0.79) and displayed markedly higher variability (CV ≈ 16%-23%). The contrast was even more pronounced in the bipedal stance, where reliability was poor to moderate across all parameters (ICC = 0.39-0.65), with the ellipse area exhibiting excessive variability (CV > 60%). Notably, no systematic between-session differences were observed for most outcomes, further supporting the consistency of the measurements. DISCUSSION: In healthy young adults, single-leg stance provides more reliable CoP measures than bipedal quiet stance when using a portable low-cost force plate. Displacement- and velocity-based outcomes during single-leg stance appear most suitable for repeated assessments and monitoring. MDC
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.