Do Exercise Interventions Improve Balance for Children and Adolescents With Down Syndrome? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youths with Down syndrome are characterized by deficits in balance/postural stability. One way to palliate balance deficits among this population is through exercise interventions. However, to the authors' knowledge, the effects of exercise interventions designed to improve the balance of youths with Down syndrome have never been systematically reviewed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to summarize the findings from studies examining the effects of exercise interventions designed to improve balance in youths with Down syndrome. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was performed in 10 databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus With Full-Text, Education Source, ERIC, Medline With Full-Text, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scopus, SocINDEX, and SPORTDiscus With Full-Text) on June 12, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and controlled trials examining the effects of exercise interventions designed to improve balance in youths with Down syndrome were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors selected the studies and extracted their characteristics and results. Three authors assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven studies, published between 2010 and 2017, met the inclusion criteria. The findings showed that exercise interventions were more effective than control conditions for improving the static balance of children with Down syndrome and the static-dynamic balance (ie, global balance score obtained with a scale measuring both static and dynamic balance) of children and adolescents with Down syndrome. Nevertheless, the findings on dynamic balance in children and static balance in adolescents were inconclusive. LIMITATIONS: With a small number of studies and their high risk of bias, the present findings must be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed exercise interventions were successful in improving the static balance of children with Down syndrome and the static-dynamic balance of children and adolescents with Down syndrome.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".