Balance and functional training and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This overview of systematic reviews examined the effect of balance and functional strength training on health outcomes in adults aged 18 years or older, to inform the Canadian 24-hour Movement Guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews published between January 2009 and May 2019. Eligibility criteria were determined a priori for population (community-dwelling adults), intervention (balance and functional training), comparator (no intervention or different types/doses), and outcomes (critical: falls and fall-related injuries; adverse events; important: physical functioning and disability; health-related quality of life; physical activity; and sedentary behaviour). Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and performed AMSTAR 2 assessment. One review was selected per outcome. Of 3288 records and 355 full-text articles, 5 systematic reviews were included, encompassing data from 15 890 participants in 23 countries. In adults 65 years and older, balance and functional training and Tai Chi reduced the rate of falls and the number of people who fell, and improved aspects of physical functioning and physical activity. The effect on health-related quality of life and falls requiring hospitalization was uncertain. While inconsistently monitored, only 1 serious adverse event was reported. No evidence was available in adults under age 65 years. Included systematic reviews and primary evidence reported by review authors ranged in quality. Overall, participation in balance and functional training reduced falls and improved health outcomes in adults 65 years of age and older. PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42019134865. Novelty This overview informs updated guidelines for balance training in adults. Balance and functional training reduced falls and improved health outcomes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".