ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Reliability of a Home-Based Smartphone Balance Assessment in Healthy Middle-Aged and Older Adults.
Article in Sensors (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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Smartphone accelerometry could enable longitudinal home-based balance testing, yet its reliability across tasks and outcome measures must be established. We assessed the test-retest reliability and measurement precision of a custom smartphone balance application. Sixty-nine healthy, community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults (ages 41-76 years) performed a 5 s home-based balance assessment weekly for 3 weeks. The assessment was directed by the application, which generated accelerometer-based sway metrics. Participants performed two 30 s trials each of feet together and tandem stance (eyes open, eyes closed) and single leg stance (eyes open only). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and relative standard error of measurement (SEM%) were calculated for time-domain and frequency-domain measures. Outcomes achieved good-to-excellent reliability when averaged across three weekly assessments (ICC = 0.59-0.95), particularly mediolaterally. Time-domain measures, particularly mean acceleration (ICC = 0.84-0.92; SEM% = 11.1-23.5%), were the most reliable and precise outcomes overall, while frequency-domain measures showed lower reliability and precision at higher spectral bands (ICC as low as 0.59; SEM% up to 41.5%). As standing tasks became more difficult, reliability and precision declined correspondingly. We conclude that minimally supervised, home-based balance assessment can produce reliable, precise sway measures in healthy, screened, iPhone-owning middle-aged and older adults. This application carries potential for large-scale, remote balance monitoring for research purposes, though validation in more diverse and higher-risk populations will be needed before clinical application can be recommended.
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.