ArticlePloS one2026
A pilot trial investigating feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a task-specific step training regimen to improve balance recovery among community-dwelling older adults.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05734443 (Effects of Task-Specific Step Training on Reactive Balance After Laboratory-Induced Trips), which is not on this 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.
Effects of Task-Specific Step Training on Reactive Balance After Laboratory-Induced Trips: A Pilot Trial
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While a growing number of studies have shown positive effects of perturbation-based balance training on balance recovery after tripping, this training has employed specialized equipment that may pose a barrier for wider adoption. To address this, the purpose of this pilot trial was to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a novel, low-resource (i.e., not requiring specialized equipment) version of perturbation-based balance training referred to here as task-specific step training. Thirty community-dwelling older adults (mean (SD) age: 71.8 (4.4) years) were recruited and allocated to either step training (n = 10), traditional treadmill perturbation-based balance training (n = 10), or a control group involving no training (n = 10). Participants were then exposed to two overground laboratory-induced trips while walking on a walkway. Results showed the step training group exhibited an initial recovery step that was 9.0% body height longer (p < 0.001) and 0.25 m/s faster (p = 0.011) than the control group.The step training group also exhibited a 4.8% body height longer recovery step, and a fall rate that was 39% lower (p = 0.037) when compared to the treadmill training group after lab-induced trips. While promising, these results should be interpreted with caution give the modest sample size and a potential bias between groups with respect to safety harness usage during laboratory-induced trips. A future trial with adequate statistical power to better evaluate efficacy and effectiveness of this step training on real-world trip and fall risk appears warranted. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05734443).
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.