MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111967776 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20140090

Does Perturbation-Based Balance Training Prevent Falls? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trials

2014· review· en· W2111967776 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialMedicineBalance (ability)Poison controlInjury preventionPhysical therapyFall preventionMeta-analysisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationFalls in older adultsData extractionRate ratioMEDLINEInternal medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older adults and individuals with neurological conditions are at an increased risk for falls. Although physical exercise can prevent falls, certain types of exercise may be more effective. Perturbation-based balance training is a novel intervention involving repeated postural perturbations aiming to improve control of rapid balance reactions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the effect of perturbation-based balance training on falls in daily life. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946-July 2014), EMBASE (1974-July 2014), PEDro (all dates), CENTRAL (1991-July 2014), and Google Scholar (all dates) were the data sources used in this study. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials written in English were included if they focused on perturbation-based balance training among older adults or individuals with neurological conditions and collected falls data posttraining. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators extracted data independently. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing information. A PEDro score was obtained for each study. Primary outcomes were proportion of participants who reported one or more falls (ie, number of "fallers") and the total number of falls. The risk ratio (proportion of fallers) and rate ratio (number of falls) were entered into the analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies involving 404 participants were included. Participants who completed perturbation-based balance training were less likely to report a fall (overall risk ratio=0.71; 95% confidence interval=0.52, 0.96; P=.02) and reported fewer falls than those in the control groups (overall rate ratio=0.54; 95% confidence interval=0.34, 0.85; P=.007). LIMITATIONS: Study authors do not always identify that they have included perturbation training in their intervention; therefore, it is possible that some appropriate studies were not included. Study designs were heterogeneous, preventing subanalyses. CONCLUSIONS: Perturbation-based balance training appears to reduce fall risk among older adults and individuals with Parkinson disease.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0750.019
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it