The relationship between forward head posture, postural control and gait: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Forward head posture (FHP) is a common postural deviation. An increasing number of studies have reported that people with FHP present with impaired postural control and gait; however, there is conflicting evidence. A systematic review focusing on these relationships has been unavailable to date. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a relationship between FHP, postural control and gait? METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021231908). Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus (via EBSCO) were systematically searched, and a manual search was performed using the reference lists of included studies. Eligible studies included observational studies addressing the relationship between FHP, postural control and/or gait. Quality assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cross-Sectional Studies. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were selected for this review. Consistent evidence supported that people with FHP had significant alterations in limits of stability (n = 3), performance-based balance (n = 3), and cervical proprioception (n = 4). Controversial evidence existed for a relationship of FHP with static balance (n = 4) and postural stability control (n = 4). Limited evidence existed to support an alteration in gait and vestibular function. Three studies on induced FHP consistently identified no reduced postural control. SIGNIFICANCE: Current evidence supports an association between FHP and a detrimental alteration in limits of stability, performance-based balance, and cervical proprioception. Instead of simply indicating impaired overall balance, the findings of this review indicate that a reduction in specific aspects of the postural control requires to be clarified in clinical evaluation for individuals with FHP, which would facilitate the planning and application of appropriate interventions to prevent dysfunctions and disability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".